U.S.: Attack Dogs Used Against Prisoners

redrock

BarkingDogs wrote:

but in typical brit fashion..

I read every post. I have friends that are police officers, whether on the street or taskforce. I also have a friend that is a prison officer..... so no, I'm not talking out of my ass.

Repeating the same opinion over and over again is not a discussion. Taking everything as a personal attack on the US and/or saying americans are the best/do it better is not conductive to any discussion.

Using the attack dogs amounts to torture and is a violation of basic human rights. Wherever these people are on our social ladder and whatever we may think about them, they are human.

BTW... I'm not a 'Brit'

The Illinoisemakers

redrock wrote:

I read every post. I have friends that are police officers, whether on the street or taskforce. I also have a friend that is a prison officer..... so no, I'm not talking out of my ass.

Repeating the same opinion over and over again is not a discussion. Taking everything as a personal attack on the US and/or saying americans are the best/do it better is not conductive to any discussion.

Using the attack dogs amounts to torture and is a violation of basic human rights. Wherever these people are on our social ladder and whatever we may think about them, they are human.

BTW... I'm not a 'Brit'

Ok so dogs=torture. What method do you believe should be used in situations where prisoners refuse to listen? They have to do something, so if it's not dogs what is it?

Ebizzie

The Illinoisemakers wrote:

Ok so dogs=torture. What method do you believe should be used in situations where prisoners refuse to listen? They have to do something, so if it's not dogs what is it?

obviously positive reenforcement would work. these "criminals" have been disadvantaged their whole lives. they need a friend in times of need, not an enemy.

The Illinoisemakers

Ebizzie wrote:

obviously positive reenforcement would work. these "criminals" have been disadvantaged their whole lives. they need a friend in times of need, not an enemy.

I thought dogs were man's best friend.

redrock

The Illinoisemakers wrote:

Ok so dogs=torture. What method do you believe should be used in situations where prisoners refuse to listen? They have to do something, so if it's not dogs what is it?

I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist. I cannot claim to figure out what could make these people listen. I leave that to those that can delve in their minds. Torture is not a solution. Leave them in their cells if they don't want to budge?

The Illinoisemakers

honest answer, I appreciate that. I don't see it as torture. What is torture is what the victims of these criminals went through, when they were raped, assualted, or killed. I really think using the dog is the best way. Keeps officer safe, and isn't likely to kill prisoner. Or a good bean bag to the chest.

Puck78

The Illinoisemakers wrote:

honest answer, I appreciate that. I don't see it as torture. What is torture is what the victims of these criminals went through, when they were raped, assualted, or killed. I really think using the dog is the best way. Keeps officer safe, and isn't likely to kill prisoner. Or a good bean bag to the chest.

yes, right... what about tie them with a chain to the wall? In that way they won't assault the guards and would be weak enough to not assault them also later.
What about a mock execution? That would scare them enough to not misbehave again in the future.
What about a pyramid of naked bodies?

...where do you draw a line?

What about the people that said that Iraq is better now because, even if there's not WMD, still saddam is not free anymore to use torture? What's the difference between Saddam's torture and american torture?

Ebizzie

The Illinoisemakers wrote:

I thought dogs were man's best friend.

money, my friend. money.

sponger

Ebizzie wrote:

obviously positive reenforcement would work. these "criminals" have been disadvantaged their whole lives. they need a friend in times of need, not an enemy.

Positive reinforcement? So, you think the officers should entice the prisoners out of their cells with cookies? I don't think you are really grasping the seriousness of the situation. The average violent criminal is not some lonely soul who just needs a good friend. These people will interpret any shred of friendship as a sign of weakness as use it against you for their own personal gain. Such is the pathological criminal mindset documented time and again by people who do know the difference between positive reinforcement vs. crime and punishment.

sponger

Puck78 wrote:

What about the people that said that Iraq is better now because, even if there's not WMD, still saddam is not free anymore to use torture? What's the difference between Saddam's torture and american torture?

Let's see here, if given the choice, which would you rather have?

Being strapped to a chair and beaten into unconciousness just for the sake of being beaten.

or

Having a guard dog bite your arm or your leg until you submit to instructions to exit your cell.

Under your rationale, there is no difference. So, with that in mind, you would really not prefer one or the other.

And that's what leads me to believe that you still don't understand the meaning of torture - only that one action is approved and the other isn't. You say that this could not be so because you work for an organization that oversees the human rights activities of governments. However, your organization is still the "authority". And as far as I can tell, the "authority" is still the only concept you understand.

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

Let's see here, if given the choice, which would you rather have?

Being strapped to a chair and beaten into unconciousness just for the sake of being beaten.

or

Having a guard dog bite your arm or your leg until you submit to instructions to exit your cell.

Under your rationale, there is no difference. So, with that in mind, you would really not prefer one or the other.

And that's what leads me to believe that you still don't understand the meaning of torture - only that one action is approved and the other isn't. You say that this could not be so because you work for an organization that oversees the human rights activities of governments. However, your organization is still the "authority". And as far as I can tell, the "authority" is still the only concept you understand.

How about neither.

I'm sure you understand the concept of differing degrees. You can be tortured by having your fingernails pulled off and you could also be blowtorched. Just because one is quite worse than the other doesn't make one acceptable. Being against all forms of inhumane treatment does not equate to 'only understanding authority'.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

How about neither.

I'm sure you understand the concept of differing degrees. You can be tortured by having your fingernails pulled off and you could also be blowtorched. Just because one is quite worse than the other doesn't make one acceptable. Being against all forms of inhumane treatment does not equate to 'only understanding authority'.

What you're referring to is the concept of the excessive use of force. While a blow-torch is considerably worse than finger-nail pulling, each easily qualify as unnecessary and excessive.

However, it is not so easy to classify the controlled use of a dog as being excessive and unnecessary. I'm sure we can both agree that some measure of force is necessary when a prisoner is refusing to comply. Let's look at the alternatives:

nightstick = head injury, broken bones and possible brain damage

taser = possible cardiac arrythmias and head injury secondary to the fall

bean bag gun= internal bleeding and possible cardiac arrythmias secondary to chest wall hit

pepper spray= only minimally effective with non- compliant prisoners ( ie: still a danger to the officer)

I don't see puck on here complaining about the human rights that are being violated by the use of those tacts. That's why it really is a matter of what is or isn't sanctioned by a "recognized authority".

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

What you're referring to is the concept of the excessive use of force. While a blow-torch is considerably worse than finger-nail pulling, each easily qualify as unnecessary and excessive.

However, it is not so easy to classify the controlled use of a dog as being excessive and unnecessary. I'm sure we can both agree that some measure of force is necessary when a prisoner is refusing to comply. Let's look at the alternatives:

nightstick = head injury, broken bones and possible brain damage

taser = possible cardiac arrythmias and head injury secondary to the fall

bean bag gun= internal bleeding and possible cardiac arrythmias secondary to chest wall hit

pepper spray= only minimally effective with non- compliant prisoners ( ie: still a danger to the officer)

I don't see puck on here complaining about the human rights that are being violated by the use of those tacts. That's why it really is a matter of what is or isn't sanctioned by a "recognized authority".

Pepper spray, I would think, would be at least enough to disorient the prisoner
to get a handle the situation. What would be the effect of tranquilizers? Having a dog come at you ready to attack is terrifying and dehumanizing. It seems like people would say 'What the fuck! Get the dog off that guy! Someone help!' not just accept this as a way of controling people. It just seems sick and twisted to me. Maybe people wouldn't be so hardened and unable to rejoin society if they weren't treated like animals. People make bad mistakes but it doesn't take away their humanity.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Pepper spray, I would think, would be at least enough to disorient the prisoner
to get a handle the situation. What would be the effect of tranquilizers? Having a dog come at you ready to attack is terrifying and dehumanizing. It seems like people would say 'What the fuck! Get the dog off that guy! Someone help!' not just accept this as a way of controling people. It just seems sick and twisted to me. Maybe people wouldn't be so hardened and unable to rejoin society if they weren't treated like animals. People make bad mistakes but it doesn't take away their humanity.

You haven't been watching the prison documentaries on A&E. These guys get hit with everything from pepper spray to tear gas, yet still find the means to put up a fight. The prison guards have to get fully suited up in riot gear and enter the cell as a team in order to subdue a single prisoner.

I am not an anesthesiologist, but tranquilizers do possess their inherent dangers as different people do have different responses to them. You'd need to know exactly what level of dosage would be suitable for a person of a certain size in order to ensure that overdosage or underdosage wouldn't occur.

Additionally, that's another means that would most likely have to be administered within a close distance, thus proving a danger to the administering staff. If administered through a gun, then we'd be talking about a very sharp object flying through the air, which may or may not end up landing in an area of the body that the object was intended for. For example, you could be aiming for the person's torso, but it might end up in his eye or in his grown - or even his heart.

The dog has a psychological effect. No one is denying that. But, is it a psychological effect that really amounts to torture? Considering the environment that these violent criminals are accustomed to living in, I have serious doubts as to whether that the trauma that they are experiencing from an attack by a guard dog is really that measurable and debilitating.

The problem is that you think dogs can be scary, and that's all there is to it. You aren't taking into consideration how scary your average violent criminal is. These aren't a bunch of hard-luck cases who need a good friend and a warm environment. These are people who respond only to what they fear. Yes, they are products of their environment. But, as a result, they became that environment. The more you feel sorry for them, the greater the danger you put prison guards at risk of being in.

Ebizzie

sponger wrote:

Positive reinforcement? So, you think the officers should entice the prisoners out of their cells with cookies? I don't think you are really grasping the seriousness of the situation. The average violent criminal is not some lonely soul who just needs a good friend. These people will interpret any shred of friendship as a sign of weakness as use it against you for their own personal gain. Such is the pathological criminal mindset documented time and again by people who do know the difference between positive reinforcement vs. crime and punishment.

dude, check out my post on pg 4. the positive reenforcement comment involved more tongue than my cheek could handle.

sponger

Ebizzie wrote:

dude, check out my post on pg 4. the positive reenforcement comment involved more tongue than my cheek could handle.

Ah, I see. Good one. Sarcasm is great stuff.

Skitch Patterson

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Pepper spray, I would think, would be at least enough to disorient the prisoner
to get a handle the situation. What would be the effect of tranquilizers? Having a dog come at you ready to attack is terrifying and dehumanizing. It seems like people would say 'What the fuck! Get the dog off that guy! Someone help!' not just accept this as a way of controling people. It just seems sick and twisted to me. Maybe people wouldn't be so hardened and unable to rejoin society if they weren't treated like animals. People make bad mistakes but it doesn't take away their humanity.

I dont think any weapon that "fires" can be used in the cell block area of a prison- it becomes to easy for an inmate to take away and use.

Puck78

sponger wrote:

And that's what leads me to believe that you still don't understand the meaning of torture - only that one action is approved and the other isn't. You say that this could not be so because you work for an organization that oversees the human rights activities of governments. However, your organization is still the "authority". And as far as I can tell, the "authority" is still the only concept you understand.

blah blah blah... let me add also: *yawn*. Tell me when you've finished to make speculations about "where do my ideas come from"...

sponger wrote:

Let's see here, if given the choice, which would you rather have?

Being strapped to a chair and beaten into unconciousness just for the sake of being beaten.
or
Having a guard dog bite your arm or your leg until you submit to instructions to exit your cell.

none of the two, thank you. It seems to me that you're the one that is not able to see that the effects of torture are in both cases the same. You don't neither consider that under Saddam people tortured were considered criminals. Same under Bush. And in both the cases we see that some people tortured were innocents, others were guilty, but still even if guilty they could have faced different treatment (I suppose you don't know the laws against ill-treatment, if you don't distinguish what a guard can or can't do, eh?)

sponger

Puck78 wrote:

You don't neither consider that under Saddam people tortured were considered criminals. Same under Bush. And in both the cases we see that some people tortured were innocents, others were guilty, but still even if guilty they could have faced different treatment (I suppose you don't know the laws against ill-treatment, if you don't distinguish what a guard can or can't do, eh?)

Again, you define torture as what falls under the "laws against ill-treatment." You're not actually defining what torture actually is. It sounds like you need to re-read the milgrim experiment link I provided earlier in the thread.

Also, this isn't about innocent people vs. guilty people. This is about torture. You keep throwing words like Saddam and Bush out there, but dropping names doesn't explain what torture is.

Again, I'm going to break it down for you nice and simple so you can't talk your way around it.

Saddam's torture: Senseless, unprovoked beatings

vs.

A dog being used to subdue a non-compliant prisoner.

Again, what you're trying to say is that they are the same, when they, in fact, are not.

You see, all you know is that Saddam = torture and Bush = torture because that's what you've been taught to believe by the media and human rights groups and so forth and so on.

And it's true. Under those regimes, torture was committed.

But, now you've read an article that says controlled use of dogs = torture.

You don't really know why, but your brain is saying, "If this article is calling controlled use of dogs torture, then Saddam = Bush = controlled use of dogs."

You lack the capacity to understand what makes them fundamentally different. And this has been proven by how you really haven't been able to explain exactly why the controlled use of dogs = torture. You just keep saying:

Use of dogs = torture because saddam = torture and bush = torture

You've been brainwashed. And again, the proof is that you don't know what defines torture. That is, you haven't been able to explain what makes the controlled use of dogs inhumane. I've read all your posts in this thread and you haven't done it once. All you know is who commits it. And you know this because it's what the media tells you.

When trying to explain what makes the use of dogs torture, yours answers have been the following:

puck wrote:

that's called torture

puck wrote:

still using dogs like that is torture

it's a method to torture them...

Now, instead of repeating what the media has fed you, try coming up with an explanation on your own as to what exactly makes the controlled use of dogs to subdue a non-compliant prisoner "torture".

Imagine having to give a presentation to a human rights organization. The presentation is going to convince the organization why the controlled use of dogs to subdue non-compliant prisoners is inhumane.

So far, your presentation consists of "Saddam committed torture" and "Bush committed torture" and "It's the same thing as the torture that Bush and Saddam committed." That is literally all you've been able to say. I just don't see how your presentation would've convinced anybody of anything.

redrock

Torture (as most people would understand the word):

It's a deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or psychological pain as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation or deterrent. It is also a tool in an attempt to force another person to confess, to yield, or just to keep this person 'in his/her place'.

If you have a phobia of spiders, someone knowingly locking you up in a room with a dozen or so spiders to scare you/to get something out of you, is commiting an act of torture as this would inflict great psychological distress.

A menancing attack dog would have the same effect.

Obviously, one may perceive there are varying 'levels' of torture, but whatever level depending on what is done and who it is inflicted upon, the result is the same... pain and fear for the person at the receiving end and cruelty from the person on the 'giving' end.

We all know what torture means.. Torture is a harsh word. I find it difficult to come to terms with, because of the implication it has in our 'civilised' world. It rears it's ugly head in everyday life when we would rather keep it for situations such a war, etc.