Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
No arguments found. Add one!
Who is " they " ? Who's doing the raping ?
Hello again, D:
The prisoners are raping other prisoners while the guards eat their lunches..
Look.. It was only a few days ago where it was reported that violent inmates at California's top maximum-security jail were paired off in staged fights as watching prison guards bet on the outcomes..
Does THAT happen in Europe?
In some cases, prisoners who refused to stop fighting were shot dead. In a ritual that became known as "gladiator days", known enemies at Corcoran State Prison were released from their cells and paired off like fighting cocks in empty prison yards.
Does THAT happen in Europe?
The 8 guards accused of doing this were acquitted in 2000. The fights occurred due to the policy of making inmates from diverse backgrounds exercise together which then lead to use of force up to and including lethal force to stop them. The diversity policy and use of force policy have changed.
And no, your experience is not a source, it’s an anacdote. It could only speak to some conditions in one prison. Stats would be a useful source for understanding a national phenomenon.
Your story is from 1996
It's true.. And, NOTHING has changed since then.. This article is from a few days ago..
No it's doesn't happen here , so American prisions are full of homosexuals raping heterosexual men ?
Hello again, D:
Prison rape isn't about sex.. It's about POWER.. In fact, ALL rape is about POWER.
As I explained earlier, it happens over here because the prisons are different over here. Not to be redundant, but it appears I MUST, in America, we send people to jail FOR punishment. In Europe, they send people to jail AS punishment..
When you're incarcerated in a system where the guards BELIEVE you're there TO BE PUNISHED, getting raped is just PART of the punishment...
So heterosexual men rape other men for power , it hasn't " caught " on in the prisons here
Hello again, D:
For the 6th, maybe the 7th time, I've explained that here in America, we send people to prison FOR punishment.. In Europe, they send people to jail AS punishment..
Lemme HELP you understand that distinction..
POWER in a system designed to INFLICT punishment, where everybody is on their own, means SURVIVAL.. Consequently, prison rape is commonplace.. But, when the prison takes care of your needs, nobody needs power, and prison rape is rare..
Do you understand now? Look.. If not, I'm here to post it even a 10th time if need be..
It's quite simple.. In America, we send people to jail FOR punishment.. In Europe, they send people to jail AS punishment..
Do you get that distinction??? In Europe, they think the sentence itself IS the punishment.. In America, we send people to jail TO BE PUNISHED.. And, American prison guards BELIEVE they're the ones designated to INFLICT it..
What the fuck has that got to do with what I asked ?
Hello again, D:
I thought you asked why American prisoners are so different.. I explained that our prisoners are no different than Europeans, but that the PRISONS themselves are different..
I know you didn't understand it.. I dunno why.. I didn't use any big words.
why is this an American phenomenon male rape in prisons are all Prisioners gay or what ?
For the 4th, maybe even the 5th time, I've explained that in America we send people to jail FOR punishment. In Europe, they send people to jail AS punishment..
I dunno what's so hard to understand about that.. Oh, you can DISAGREE with me.. But, to argue that FOR punishment, is the exact same thing as AS punishment is simply MIND boggling..
Over to you, winger.
The US has a high prison population compared to other countries, so higher numbers of assault would make sense.
The question concerning rape stats is who to believe. The Justice Dept showed just under 1000 confirmed rapes in 2008. But then they decided to do a survey to see how many are “sexually victimized”(this definition to include consensual sex with guards) and they found 216,000 with men being at higher risk for victimization from guards than women.
So the survey, where we ask known criminals to tell us how they are treated in the place they hate most, would indicate that men are raped more than women in the US, and prisoners are raped more than non-prisoners. But if you go off confirmed rape cases, it’s a lot more realistic.
Prisons have cameras, and forcible rape is easy to confirm medically. I see that the US could have a problem, but I also see that the problem is overblown.
The question concerning rape stats is who to believe.
Neither you, me, Dermot, OR the study suggests that prison rape DOESN'T happen in America.. HOW many, or WHO to believe is a nice number, but has NOTHING to do with this debate.
I'd rather see a study that compares the number of prison rapes in Europe with the number in the US using proportional populations.. That would be an informative study..
Look.. I could be wrong.. I was wrong once back in '09.
I bet if you did a survey in Saudi Arabia, you would find that no man has ever been raped in prison or outside. But what would that actually tell you?
Hello again, A:
That if he DOES rape somebody, they'll CHOP his head off.
The truth is, we could REDUCE our crime rates bigly if we chopped peoples heads off.. We could probably REDUCE drug abuse too, if we MURDERED all the drug users like they're doing in the Philippines..
Yes, what ARE you telling me?
I didn’t mean to imply that male rape doesn’t happen. Rather that no one would ever admit that it happens in survey (or otherwise) due to their culture. The data would then indicate that Saudi Arabia has a solid handle on prison rape as compared to the US, but the data can’t be trusted. Similarly, when gathering stats from surveys, we should always be aware of the shortcomings of this kind of data, and we should compare it to other data gathering methods.
The incredible descrpancy between survey data and data derived from confirmed cases tells me that the issue is worse than the confirmed cases would imply, but nowhere near as bad as survey data would indicate.
I would be interested to see comparative stats with other countries. But I would also want to know the methodology and potential biases of the data collecting agency. Self reported data is popular with international monitoring groups, but self reported data from some countries are completely bogus.
There is nothing nice about jail. Have you ever been to jail? Why don't you perform some science. Go up to a squad car, and take a dump right on top of it. Resist arrest as much as you can.
Congratulations, you are now in jail. Hopefully, you'll get enough time in jail to where you can make firsthand observations about just how nice jail is.
But really, what can we do to make jails less nice? Who would want to do that? The awfully spiteful sort, I'd imagine.
@TzarPepe. "There is nothing nice about jail...Hopefully, you'll get enough time in jail to where you can make firsthand observations about just how nice jail is...But really, what can we do to make jails less nice? Who would want to do that? The awfully spiteful sort, I'd imagine."
Thank you TzarPepe! This is an important issue. The real problem is how BAD/HORRIBLE/APPALLING conditions are in US prisons at the moment (not to mention the excess prison population). This is frequently complained about by Human Rights organizations and the UN for not complying with base standards of Humaneness toward prisoners but many people in the US seem to have the idea that "if anything the prisoners should have it worse." These people are either: A. Very ignorant on the topic (which I think is very prevalent in our society) B. A moral monster
People who think it should be worse are usually upset that prisoners can exercise the day away in a gym where they learn best practices from other inmates concerning how to fight police with their new found prison fitness, or how to get away with it next time. Or sometimes they are upset that prisoners get TV or college education on the tax payers dime.
People who are upset about the conditions are probably upset about 216,000 rape victims, a number derived from a survey of the prison population. A number that makes prison into an apparent daily rape orgy. That would indeed be awful, if it were true.
Have you personally ever seen the conditions of a jail or prison?
People who think it should be worse are usually upset that prisoners can exercise the day away in a gym
Hello again, A:
I'm NOT in to coddling prisoners.. I don't like 'em much. They're actually pretty shitty people..
But, MOST of 'em are gonna be released.. To me, it would be in America's best interest to make sure, as best we can, that the guy who is released, doesn't attack your daughter..
But, we don't DO that.. In the interest of being tough on crime, we're letting rabid maniacs out on the street EVERY day, in YOUR city, with $20 bucks in their pocket, and NO job, NO place to stay, and NO prospects..
It's the ultimate act of shooting ourselves in the foot..
@Amarel. The exercise equipment (e.g. weight room) is typically highly restricted to a small portion of the day if available at all (depending on the prison). Now, there are all kinds of other ways of exercising in the absence of equipment (which could give them increased physical power of the kind you are suggesting that can be misused; also note that fitness in the context of the prison system is also a constructive activity and survival tool to defend themselves for their own safety). As for college education, reading material, and pleasure activity, I think creative/constructive/productive activity/endeavors is exactly what we should be promoting (the idea is rehabilitation in my view, not a revenge/grudging form of punishment). So if somebody wants to work towards a degree in Literature, Chemistry, History, Economics, Art, Psychology, and/or all of the above then excellent. This would require by necessity that this persons mind is largely being reformed/remolded in a positive direction (which is the goal). Also, one would require a reasonably safe environment in order to study/think in the way necessary to accomplish this feat. I think a library of books and documentary type videos are also exactly what we want (their minds critically and actively engaged). Now, if you have a concern that said Documentary type videos are too "fun" and that people are just going to watch tv any chance they get, then a system could be devised in which you have to earn time to watch documentaries from various means (e.i. it is a privilege, the formal education should be a privilege upon "good behavior" also for that matter). I think people very wrongly have the notion that if there were creative/productive activities then there is not a significant punishment occurring, which I do not agree with at all. If a person is being confined to a small space for a years, decades, ect. then there is obviously a strong punishment occurring (they are being ostracized from society/the world). Human beings need creative/constructive/productive work in order maintain mental health (which should clearly be the goal) and a reasonably safe environment.
"Have you personally ever seen the conditions of a jail or prison?"
I have not personally, first hand seen the conditions of US prisons. However, I was a Security Guard for 4 years and knew many Prison Guards who describe the conditions inside of the prisons essentially exactly the same as what you can view on documentary programs about US prison systems (also as I said in my OP, US prison system are frequently complained about by the international community sighting specific issues that line up with what you could see in a documentary or read about).
Now, considering the two options: 1. A prison that is not at all safe for the inmates and there is very little constructive/productive activity 2. A reasonably safe environment with a plethora of creative/productive activity for prisoners to engage in
I think it is clear that the latter is both superior in a PRACTICAL sense (e.i. that sounds like a type of society that one would want to be re-acclimated into someday considering they are still treated with dignity even when they know they did something wrong and led to them being ostracized for "x" many years), and in a PHILOSOPHICAL sense as it is not a cruel or unusual punishment but rather encouraging growth/rehabilitation. The former is objectionable on both grounds of being UNPRAGMATIC as in that system is not conducive to human mental health and will stir up all kinds of resentment in the prison population toward the outside society wants/allows them to be treated like that (so poorly) and some percentage of these people are eventually going to return to the society that mistreated them. Philosophically, I have discussed elsewhere, "...rather then "punishment" the effort should be on both pre-crime prevention and post-crime "rehabilitation". We know that people's brains are highly neuro-plastic and that their minds can potentially become so different than the minds of the person who committed said crime "X" far in the past as to make it essentially just as unlikely that they would commit another such act in the future as someone who never committed the act to begin with. So, I agree with "detention centers" being implemented for as long as potentially needed to get someone "back on their feet" if possible, if not possible then long term detention center with constructive/productive activity I view as sensible."
There are a number of issues with US prisons that can be addressed. I don’t believe an epidemic of rape or subhuman conditions are among them.
If you wish to discuss the conditions of US prisons, it is not enough to reference “documentaries” as a source. You have to actually provide a source. International opinion is of no importance if the opinion is not derived from accurate information. I am interested only in that information. We can form our own opinions.
There are numerous legal protections for US prisoners already in place.
Conditions will vary depending on the prison, but according to one convicted killer in one North Carolina prison, life there is one of leisure.
My own anecdotal example of the inside of a jail was nothing alarming. Cameras were everywhere. Prisoner activity was highly monitored. The beds didn’t look comfortable though, especially not in the temp cell where it’s just a sleeping mat. Again, this was not alarming.
Though conditions vary, US jails don’t tend to resemble rat infested sewer holes as some would imply (though they are this way in some parts of the world). If they do, there is recourse. Lawyers love to sue, and lawyers are in jails all the time. They would be happy to win a class action lawsuit against the deep pockets of the prison system.
Here is an example of conditions in many prisons:
One of the issues that will affect prison conditions is overcrowding. I see several causes of overcrowding.
First, the US dismantled its mental health infrastructure in the 1970’s because asylums seem mean. As a result, mentally ill people, left to their own devices, will often commit crimes to get in jail rather than sleep in the cold. They are too ill to hold it together in socially, but hey, asylums are mean.
Second, law enforcement has become more efficient while criminals have not. Better policing means apprehending larger numbers. This is why overcrowding is a problem in many other places around the world. This also correlates to a significant drop in crime stats.
Pay attention to the language used when discussing prison overcrowding. Whether the crime is violent or not doesn’t tell you much, and here’s why; imagine someone burglarizes your home while you are on vacation, they clean the place out, and then they are caught. That’s a non-violent crime. Now imagine a bar drunk splashes his drink on the bartender. That’s assault, a violent crime. Who should do more time?
Also, consider that Al Capone was locked up for a non-violent offense. The creative style of the prosecution of Capone is often used today to extend the sentences of violent organized crime members who cannot be caught for their violence (no one will talk), but can be caught red handed for their non-violent drug offenses (which is never simply use or possession as those are minor crimes)
If US prisons are horrible dungeon-like piss holes, I want the problem addressed. I have seen nothing to indicate this. I will welcome your sources that provide hard substantiation.
List of Sources (Btw, due to how many sources I am going to cite I obviously know that you could hardly read even a fraction of them in a reasonable amount of time. I am just putting them up here for you to scroll through at your choosing and if you have a specific bone to pick with me about one or some of them then we can narrow in on a specific article):
First, here is a link to all of the official documents/conventions detailing all of the rights that prisoners are legally entitled to under international law: https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/detention/ (scroll to the bottom for links, the article is not of direct relevance)
Now, if US prisons do not comply with said international laws then this demonstrates that not only are US prisons not "too nice", but are "to harsh" and in violation of basic human rights standards as agreed upon on the World Stage. Now, the following links are evidence to demonstrate that US prisons do in fact violate many internationally agreed upon human rights standards that are formally written in law and international law supersedes that of any one particular nation (including the US).
1. Amnesty International on long-term Solitary Confinement that directly violates UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/entombed-isolation-in-the-us-federal-prison-system/
2. Human Rights Watch, World Report 2017- US: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/united-states
3. Human Rights Watch links no a large number of sources detailing about poor (and in many cases unlawful) conditions of US prisons: https://www.hrw.org/legacy/advocacy/prisons/u-s.htm
4. HRW US Prisoner Abuse: https://www.hrw.org/news/2004/05/13/prisoner-abuse-how-different-are-us-prisons
5. HRW on Mental Illness, Human Rights, US Prisons: https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/09/22/mental-illness-human-rights-and-us-prisons
6. UN condemns Solitary Confinement in US Prisons for the majority of cases as Torture: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/02/solitary-confinement-isnt-punishment-its-torture
7. HRW Report on Sexual Abuses/Rape in US Prisons: https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report.html (Short summary article of report found here- https://www.hrw.org/news/2001/04/18/rape-crisis-us-prisons))
8. Sources regarding abuses of Prison Labor:
Btw, I live in the US. Amarel, out of curiosity, do you live in the US (if you are willing to share)?
international law supersedes that of any one particular nation
This is incorrect. International law does not supersede the laws of sovereign nations, such as the US. That’s what sovereignty entails. This point is somewhat irrelevant to the subject at hand so if you would like to challenge this, there should be a separate debate.
If you would like to use the standards set by the UN as a guide for what is excessive, you will still have to show a given practice is occurring and explain why it is excessive. Simply saying “the UN says so” is the kind of appeal to authority that I had hoped you would avoid by providing the data from which international opinion is derived.
I will now go through each source for valid points or critiques.
Source1: This articles bias is pretty glaring to a critical reader. It contends that long term or indefinite solitary confinement is problematic in our prison system. It’s hard to know what they mean by solitary confinement since they include prisoners being separated from their visitors by glass. They also like to drop numbers without a basis, such as 80,000 prisoners estimated to be in solitary. Since solitary includes visitors, I guess their estimate can be whatever they arbitrarily want. Their main gripe seems to be that prisoners in super max prisons (reserved for very few) do not have cell mates. That and the fact that their exercise room lacks natural light and convicted terrorists have restricted communication.
The following quotes from the article undercut AI’s opinion.
-“US courts have also consistently found that isolating people who are seriously mentally ill in "super-maximum security" facilities is incompatible with the US constitutional prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment."
-“prisoners are sent there only after it is determined that they would pose a serious risk to themselves or the safety of other inmates, staff, or the public if placed in a less secure setting.”
-“all measures must be consistent with the USA's obligation to treat all prisoners humanely, without exception.”
-“cells have windows which allow access to natural light; that most inmates have TVs with multiple channels and access to in-cell educational and other programs; and that they have daily contact with staff”
While AI uses harsh terminology for their own rhetorical purposes, but the little they explain about their source information does not support their opinion. The opinion of Amnesty International and other organizations including the UN is immaterial. What matters are the facts that inform opinion. The facts in this case do not appear cruel to me.
This source states it’s bias up front, which is at least honest. Much of the article is irrelevant to our debate The relevant part was as follows;
After they listed a number of apparent improvements to the prison system, they ended by stating that if Trump enforces certain current laws as promised, it would be difficult to close facilities....I’m not sure how this source makes your case.
Another report from the honestly biased HRW. This source seems to be entirely past tense and refer excessively to the 90’s. In this article they briefly cover prisoner abuse in a prison and state how the culprits were punished. That’s good. The only reason this article supports your position is because they state that abuses elsewhere go unaddressed. This is necessarily an assumption since addressed issues would be known issues. Again, the opinion of HRW is not an argument.
Here’s a funny story where HRW claims that American jails are like Abu Graib. I knew they were biased but... Their reference here is, again, a case from the 90’s. You do know that court decisions set precedent and alter policy right?
The following quote is a great use of rhetoric that sounds awful and says nothing: “In recent years, U.S. prison inmates have been beaten with fists and batons, stomped on, kicked, shot, stunned with electronic devices, doused with chemical sprays, choked, and slammed face first onto concrete floors by the officers whose job it is to guard them”
HRW doesn’t have to site examples because we all know this happens. We all know it happens because we know there are situations wherein most of these actions are warranted, as well as cases that make the news because the guard gets fired. While the above statement sounds like something, it doesn’t make a case against the prison system. Neither is there a valid point in the number incarcerated for non-violent crimes. As if burglary should have a light sentence. Do they consider the running of a prostitution ring to be non-violent? Probably.
I wonder what recommendations HRW would have for addressing the human rights abuses of criminals to their victims.
This source isn’t particularly relevant. It’s mostly about the fact that prisons weren’t meant to be asylums and thus, they make poor asylums. Unfortunately their solution seems to be to turn prisons into hybrid asylums. I don’t think it’s very tenable, but we could discuss it in a different debate.
The UN’s opinion is not of concern. What matters is your opinion and the facts you base them on. I hope you can see the bias in this guardian article as well. They reference the 80,000 estimate from HRW that I criticized earlier. They say that a man was in solitary for two years for repeatedly fighting with inmates. They then go on to talk about prolonged solitary confinement implying that the man was there for two years. If that were the case it would have been impossible for him to “repeatedly” fight inmates. They don’t say how long his stunts in solitary were. Nor is there ever a recommended alternative for people who are a physical threat to others.
The solitary issue is a good one to focus on, since the UN’s opinion is an irrelevant appeal to authority, how long do you think is an acceptable time in isolation? For that matter, do you think as AI does, having visitors counts as isolation? I seriously would like you opinion on the matter.
This is your first valid/only source. It’s an opinion piece, but in this one they have real sources. The real sources are what matters.
When people use real sources, they are forced to acknowledge (or at least present in their sources) the aspects that run counter to the bias of the piece. In this article they acknowledge that there are only two empirical studies within the last decade. After neglecting to reference the most recent studies, the article still acknowledges that “precise conclusions as to the national prevalence of prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse cannot be drawn from the above studies”.
After quoting a prisoner who said of his current prison “When they notice someone being exploited, the situation is investigated and more than likely the victimizer is punished.", the article re-emphasized their opinion that this vigilance is rare.
It’s a good source, but their opinion is not conclusive.
These are all basically opinion pieces from the guy in the YouTube video (except for one link which didn’t work). There were articles from CBS, The Economist, and The Guardian concerning the same subject as the truthdig blog, any one of which would have been a better source.
But then, none of these articles are relevant unless you can show that putting prisoners to work is somehow cruel or unusual. Perhaps a tough argument when your sources are of the opinion that taking away weights (limiting their options for doing physical work) is unjust.
This one was funny. This Pravda piece had a lot of allegations and little substance. First, most debt doesn’t come with jail time. Punitive fines (which may come with jail time) are not the same as debt. Even so the issue of prison debt accrual is a real issue that needs to be addressed as it seems to be used as a loophole to the 8th Amendment prohibition of excessive fines.
The issue of prison labor is altogether different. It is not cruel or unusual.
The interviewee asserted a long list of American companies using prison labor. When asked how exactly do these corporations use prison labor, He responded “well, they move behind prison walls”...
At least they backed up their allegations of unfair labor situations with extensive video of people sitting, laying in bed, and looking at paperwork. Pretty ugly stuff.
I get the impression that you just took a large sample from your favorite news sites and posted them here without specific reference or context in the hopes that an appeal to popularity coupled with appeals to authority might make your case for you. Take a look at my last post on the subject. I am making specific points that I support with specific sources. I am not simply providing news articles from people stating my opinion for me. In all of your links you provided essentially one source.
I'm from the US.
You obviously don’t understand the meaning of the word sovereign. The only way for a nation to lose its sovereignty is voluntarily or by force. The US has not given up its sovereignty, and no one is in a position to force it. Hence, the UN has no jurisdiction in the US. I know you hate it, but we love it.
The first source above is from the UN (please read the first one, the other ones serve to further detail the point if you need further clarification/substantiation). It verifies that the UD is a morally binding document, not legally binding. Note, the subject for debate is "Are the USA's jails too nice". If it is violating basic moral codes of the document that US helped draft (the US was one of the contributing nations that drafted the document), then it would be quite difficult to make a case that the prison system is too nice. Moreover, it shows that the UD has inspired many Human Rights treatises that are legally binding if a nation has ratified them.
So, the question is, has the USA ratified relevant aspects of said treaties on top of the UD that are legally binding? Yes.
For source above, scroll down in the left sidebar to "United States of America" and note the treatises that have been officially signed/ratified by the USA, thus legally binding them to the international law that "international law supersedes that of any one particular nation". Also, the sources I link you to discuss that when these are breached, the nation in violation is subject to legal punishment/actions. Furthermore, if you want to read these treatises for yourself, then I would refer you to my first post that linked you to the relevant binding documents reproduced here: https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/
Furthermore, notice how many Human Rights Conventions that the US has refused to ratify (as of yet) from the UN for which the majority to overwhelming majority of Nations have ratified. And the ones that have been ratified are being violated in various ways (for instance the topic of our debate for which I proved substantial evidence of in my first post). I think it would be exceedingly difficult to argue that when the US fails to comply with international standards of human decency, that this is being too nice (and the prison system is an exemplar of the US attempting to either exploit "loop holes"/vague language in the articles or just directly violate specific articles entirely and as I pointed out, international bodies are aware of it and have been trying to fight back against the violations, pseudo-compliance, and apathy of US Government on these issues for a long time).
My original argument follows/holds from these facts. If you want to dispute the veracity of these claims, I would be interested to hear it.
You are correct to redirect me to the subject at hand, whether US jails are too nice. No they aren't. In that we agree.
We have been discussing something rather different, whether they are egregiously bad. Your reference to the UN as a legal/moral authority is fallacious. First you argue that international law supersedes the laws of a sovereign nation (They don't. This is a function of the philosophy of government), then you argue that these laws are at least morally superior because enough people in the world think so (appeal to popularity. Many countries agree to all kinds of things in the UN, then break these agreements back home, and for their breach of law, they get the UN's strongly worded letter. That's not law, that's a diplomatic tool).
If our jails are terrible, then argue on the grounds of reason. Your reason. State your case as to why prisoners deserve certain protections. Explain what rights you believe prisoners retain and why. Don't just say the UN agrees or some NGO agrees with you.
If you want to claim that there is a rape epidemic in our prisons, show some data. Don't show endless op eds of other peoples who supposedly looked at data but show none. The substantial evidence you claim to have provided in your first post was mostly absent. It was other people with your opinion.
Your claim of education implies you know what a source is. Which means you know that a YouTube interview with some schmuck is not a source. The one source that had real references had to admit that there isn't really any empirical evidence to support their opinion. They had plausible reasons why their opinion may be valid despite this lack of empirical evidence, but guess what. Another plausible reason is that their opinion is wrong. Which means all of your "sources" citing other peoples opinions would be wrong on the same grounds.
But you are correct, even if international law actually means international suggestion, even if rape is not at epidemic level, even if putting prisoners to work is perfectly acceptable, our jails are not too nice.
@Amarel. You are correct to redirect me to the subject at hand, whether US jails are too nice. No they aren't. In that we agree.
Okay, we are good here.
We have been discussing something rather different, whether they are egregiously bad.
The wording "egregiously bad" is not necessarily what I am arguing. What I am arguing is that the US prison system is bad enough so as to violate basic standards of decency under Human Rights stipulations on the World Stage that the US has agreed to and in some cases had a hand in creating.
Your reference to the UN as a legal/moral authority is fallacious. First you argue that international law supersedes the laws of a sovereign nation (They don't. This is a function of the philosophy of government), then you argue that these laws are at least morally superior because enough people in the world think so (appeal to popularity.
The reference to the UN as a legal authority is valid. I sent you links to the legal framework in my previous point. The key to the legal point is that the US (a sovereign nation), out of it's own volition ratified a number of treatises from the UN for which it was under no compulsion to do so (e.i. the US chose to legally bind itself to the UN treatises and conditions thereof). Link to establish this again from the ACLU: https://www.aclu.org/issues/human-
As for moral authority, the United States itself had a hand in constructing the UD for example, so even by the US's own standards it is violating basic moral codes for human rights and decency.
Your claim of education implies you know what a source is.
I referenced all of the relevant International Laws from the primary sources themselves (e.i. the United Nations), some of the top Human Rights Organizations in the World (e.i. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, ect.), and the man from the YouTube videos is a prominent Journalist named Chris Hedges (credentialed, not a "schmuck", although you can certainly disagree with his views, he has many books with sources that can be traced).
Now, I am not at all claiming that the US is the worst Prison system in the world, or in the very bottom, or any such claim. I am stating that " the US prison system is bad enough so as to violate basic standards of decency under Human Rights stipulations on the World Stage that the US has agreed to and in some cases had a hand in creating" and thus should be evoking moral criticism/condemnation and efforts/demands to reform the system toward greater standards of human rights at minimum aligned with the moral/legal standards that the US itself has agreed to (e.i. the public, both national and international, should be calling a spade a spade and move to end the hypocrisy of the US prison system).
The reference to the UN as a legal authority is valid
No it isn’t. An international agreement, treaty, or law only has the weight of domestic law that Congress grants it, either by drafting new domestic laws reflecting a treaty, or by agreeing that a treaty is self-executing. Not only is it Congress that gives legal weight to international laws, but Congress can vote to ignore them. If this happens, they are not put on trial, they haven’t broken the law. All that happens is international political fallout with possible sanctions. This is because the UN is actually just a diplomatic tool that pretends to be a legal one.
In our current discussion, the legal weight behind the topic at hand is not derived from the UN, but from the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution, which is the cause of the relevant ratification. This is why, if a case is heard concerning cruel and unusual punishment, it is heard before a domestic court, and weighed against the Constitution. It is not heard before an international tribunal or weighed against international laws, which have no extra-congressional jurisdiction. Since it is domestic law and policy that gives legal weight to international laws, it is domestic legal definitions that apply and domestic legal analysis that determines the outcome. This would be derived from case law relevant to the 8th Amendment.
As for moral authority, you can argue for the morality of adhering to the principles that one espouses, but that is not the moral authority of the UN. The UN has no moral authority.
I referenced all of the relevant International Laws from the primary sources themselves (e.i. the United Nations), some of the top Human Rights Organizations in the World (e.i. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, ect.), and the man from the YouTube videos is a prominent Journalist
No international laws are relevant as I have explained. You should be referencing the 8th Amendment as it is the relevant legal framework in this case.
As for citing the opinions of top NGO’s and a journalist, these are still just opinions. Before you posted your sources I counseled that “You have to actually provide a source. International opinion is of no importance if the opinion is not derived from accurate information.” Only one of your sources referenced the information from which their opinion was derived. That source information is significantly lacking an empirical basis for the stated opinion, and this was acknowledged within the article itself which, incidentally, failed to cite the two most recent (thus relevant) empirical studies on the matter.
No it isn’t.
Yes it is. Writing a page and a half of revisionist, hardline Zionist nonsense will not revoke the UN's status as an international legal authority. You are a slimy lying idiot who spends his days trying to turn reality upside down. The International Court of Justice arbitrates disputes between states and so clearly it constitutes a legal authority. Your argument is literally a long, paraphrased version of, "we don't pay attention to the UN in the United States". Well guess what? You still signed the UN Charter, so you can still be prosecuted under international law.
An international agreement, treaty, or law only has the weight of domestic law that Congress grants it, either by drafting new domestic laws reflecting a treaty, or by agreeing that a treaty is self-executing.
While the above explanation is not a page and a half, it could seem a bit long to the exceptionally dim. If reading comprehension is your problem, that would explain why you didn’t notice that we are talking about US domestic policy, not a dispute between states. You may have similarly failed to noticed that I referred to the UN as a diplomatic organization. Arbitrating international disputes is exactly what a diplomatic organization would do.
Finally, the part that you really hate. Even if the topic was one in which the UN had jurisdiction, if the US broke an international law and the UN sought to prosecute, they could only do so if the US agrees, that’s called sovereignty. The UN has no means to enforce its laws on the US. Do you know what an unenforceable law isn’t?
While the above explanation is not a page and a half
If that was all you had written, you lying little toad, then I would not have said your post was a page and a half long. Are you seriously going to pretend those three lines were all you wrote? Jesus Christ, you are such a liar it is simply spectacular.
Like I told you the last time, the International Court of Justice has legal authority to settle disputes between states, which necessarily means its decisions must override domestic laws in those states. This is so fundamentally obvious that you are only making a complete idiot of yourself by writing long essays in denial.
If that was all you had written
I wrote more that expanded on this explanation and then a whole bunch of other stuff unrelated to this part of our conversation. But I guess the reading comprehension you are lacking is exactly what you would have needed to understand this. You did say you thought it was all nonsense.
I gotta say I really underestimated the extent to which you do not understand law. There is no reason whatsoever for the rules regarding international relations to take precedent over or in even alter domestic policy. It would be as if rules governing how I act toward you should change the way I act when I’m alone. They are unrelated.
In the event that an international treaty does affect domestic policy, Congress either makes a coinciding law, or they call the treaty “self-executing” thus choosing to enforce it. Do you know what would happen if there was a conflict between a treaty and domestic law? For example, if the President signed a treaty to take away all firearms from all US citizens, do you know what would happen? It would be found Unconstitutional and everyone would keep their guns. You know why? Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The US is not subject to a foreign power, that’s what sovereignty means.
I know this is hard for you. I know that the liberty that accompanies sovereignty is anathema to your communist ideals. But it’s just the way it is.
You can holler all you want about what the UN wrote down. You can call them laws. But if an edict is unenforceable, as are the UN’s, then they aren’t actually laws.
I wrote more
You wrote a page and a half of nonsense in support of a premise which is nonsense. If you had any legitimate point you would be capable of explaining it precisely.
You are just laughably stupid and dishonest. Nobody is interesting in reading your 3,000 word denial of xMathFanxx's simple point that the UN is a legitimate legal authority. The United States signed the UN Charter. That's the end of the discussion right there you silly pontificating idiot.
If you had any legitimate point you would be capable of explaining it precisely
It was answered precisely in a few short lines. Remember you said,
“Are you seriously going to pretend those three lines were all you wrote?”
No, I’m not pretending that, it’s just the precise answer you were looking for. As true now as when I wrote it.
If you scroll up, you’ll see that x was stating much more than a simple point. Most of my response was concerning the rest. I don’t care if you aren’t interested in reading it, you don’t understand it anyway. It was directed at him.
@Amarel. The US is being extremely hypocritical by violating the same rules/regulations that they had a hand in creating or otherwise signed on to and then points to other Nations and talks about their Human Rights abuses, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity and uses this as a rational to hold them legally responsible under said laws/principles and then acts on it.
Except the question of whether these abuses exist (at least on an extensive level) has not been answered. The only source you provided that was not strictly an opinion piece, stated openly that the empirical evidence is inconclusive.
The sources I provided that you failed to address state clearly what the legal requirements are and what prisoners legal recourse is.
The 8th Amendment has been around for awhile.
Except the question of whether these abuses exist (at least on an extensive level) has not been answered.
Yes it has. Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba specifically because it is illegal to torture prisoners on US soil. Not ten days ago I watched a documentary series about Vietnam where ex-soldiers described regular gang rapes and the systematic killing of civilians to satisfy the government's "body count" statistic which was the official basis for how well the war was going. Wikileaks became famous overnight on the back of a video showing a US attack helicopter gunning down Afghan civilians in cold blood.
@Quantumhead. Exactly Thank you!. The Official Senate Report on CIA Torture is an internal report by the US, detailing in several hundreds pages the extreme extent of how much the US has violated its own laws as well as that of the UN which the US has agreed to. The US refuses to allow the UN into US prisons in order to inspect what is going on. I have provided many sources to you (that you are pretending don't matter) to this effect and that even based on what the UN can see, they are stating adimately along with all of the major Human Rights Organizations in the World (including the US's ACLU) that what is occurring is both against the moral principles in the UD that the US had a hand in drafting and illegal based on the international legal frameworks/bodies that the US voluntarily adopted.
The US refuses to allow the UN into US prisons in order to inspect what is going on
From what you argued earlier, this would seem impossible.
I have provided many sources to you (that you are pretending don't matter)
I didn't pretend they don't matter, I critiqued each one of them. Only one of them had actual references. I think it was one of the many HRW posts. In that article with actual references, your own source stated that their conclusions can't be clearly drawn from the empirical sources.
Your intellectual honesty appeared to be on shaky ground in your first post to me. You asked for a reset and I agreed. But you have not put on an impressive show. You ignore what you cannot misrepresent.
I have been trying to discuss with you the ongoing atrocities of the US Prison system that the UN and the Worlds largest, most respect Human Rights Organizations are speaking out against constantly and you have been acting like your outraged that these prisoners are even allowed the very minor privileges to play cards, dominoes, and do pull-ups sometimes and think that even this should be taken away from them?
@Amarel. "Conditions will vary depending on the prison, but according to one convicted killer in one North Carolina prison, life there is one of leisure.
The link you provided did not work directly, so I googled the link title provided here (it is patently obviously that this is what you were attempting to link me to): http://abcnews.go.com/US/
The video and article makes the exact point that I claimed it does (and more).
Moreover, you said in the post just before it:
"People who think it should be worse are usually upset that prisoners can exercise the day away in a gym where they learn best practices from other inmates concerning how to fight police with their new found prison fitness, or how to get away with it next time. Or sometimes they are upset that prisoners get TV or college education on the tax payers dime. "
How are you going to deny that?
How are you going to deny that?
Me:"You are correct to redirect me to the subject at hand, whether US jails are too nice. No they aren't. In that we agree"
I went on to explain that even if you are wrong about everything, still our jails are not too nice. I don't believe our jails are too nice on the whole. I have heard, and understand peoples complaints of criminals getting "prison ripped" and receiving their "criminal education" to be more effective criminals. But of course, as I said, "sometimes they are upset that prisoners get TV or college education on the tax payers dime."
I like when you directly quote me. It's much preferred to your now common lies and assumptions. Now I did miss the part in the article where they ABC says that we should make prison food tasteless. You had tasteless in quotes. Were you quoting something? Or just doing what you do...
@Amarel. You are hardly fooling anyone, I and others see through your bullsh't. We all know what you think about US prisons and the US more generally.. (We can do no wrong, We play by our own rules)
You said "People who think it should be worse are usually upset that prisoners can exercise the day away in a gym where they learn best practices from other inmates concerning how to fight police with their new found prison fitness, or how to get away with it next time. Or sometimes they are upset that prisoners get TV or college education on the tax payers dime." Then you linked me to this video of a Professor b'tching about all of the unnecessary "luxuries" that US prisoners receive (even at high security prisons). After that, you have been acting like the US is not being extremely hypocritical by violating the same rules/regulations that they had a hand in creating or otherwise signed on to and then points to other Nations and talks about their Human Rights abuses, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity and uses this as a rational to hold them legally responsible under said laws/principles and then acts on it. You claim that most of this is "irrelevant", non-existent, and not that big of a deal.
You cant just deny all of this and then state, "You are correct to redirect me to the subject at hand, whether US jails are too nice. No they aren't. In that we agree" without further qualifications. Where/how do you think US prisons are "not too nice" if you reject what I have been stating/arguing in my previous posts?
You don't think a person can believe that prisons are not too nice while also believing that rape is not necessarily an epidemic? If you can't see a position that doubts epidemic daily rape but still thinks prison is appropriately unpleasant, then I'm not surprised you can't stop misrepresenting my position.
Incidentally, you referencing my post is the first time you addressed what I had to say on the matter. Why don't you go back and read that whole post. Get some intellectual honesty, and get back to me.
@Amarel. "...still thinks prison is appropriately unpleasant,"
This statement proves my entire point from my previous post. How are you unable to see that? US prisons are not "appropriately unpleasant". What a disgusting thing to say after I provided you with an enormous list of serious abuses (that you even appear to have went through a fair few of them) that again, the UN and the major Human Rights Organisations in the world are denouncing and are trying to fight back against people who think like you that want and allow such a needlessly cruel and appalling system to exist.
The full context doesn't add anything, I'm quoting the relevant part for my argument. Even if rape were not a big problem in US prison, then they still would be appalling for the reason I (and the UN and major HR organizations) have given and sourced (as well as many other reason we have not mentioned).
Amarel, and please don't take this as an Ad Hominem, but people who think like you are the reason why there is a need for the UN and Human Rights Organizations.
The reasons you cited were primarily rape epidemic and labor (a couple on solitary). Doubting your position is not the same as thinking prisons are too nice, as you fallaciously assert. Rather there is a position between believing prisons are rape holes and believing they are too nice.
Again, as I said...
God I forgot to stop wasting my time on you.
"The reasons you cited were primarily rape epidemic and labor (a couple on solitary)"
The reasons I cited were not primarily on rape (although it is a serious problem). There are a large number of significant issues. What are your thoughts on the content of the video you sent me from ABC news?
You're right. If you rape a woman or hold up a store, you should be rewarded with a blowjob and a handjob once every two days.
I wonder how it'd be in an Iranian, Pakistani or North Korean prison. Probably no phone call and no pay to sweep the floor. Probably some good ol fashioned flogging involved as well...
In any nation run by the Sharia, hands are cut off, adulterers are killed, and having your teeth knocked out is a part of "morality patrol". You should try a prison in Afghanistan and tell us how much they pay you to sweep the floors.