And now, a question for the anti-death penalty crowd.

[riverdeep]

With the Supreme Court ruling, this board seems to busting out with death penalty debate, which I think is good regardless of your stance. I'm pro-death penalty in general, but with the justice system in such disarray, I've been rendered effectively anti-death penalty under the current system.

But there are many who believe no state sponsored killing under any circumstances. Fair enough. But I have a question about specifics. When you say 'life in prison', what does that actually entail? Please be as specific as you can.

Does that mean 23 1/2 hours a day in solitary confinement? Cause that's a form of torture. People can and do go crazy without adequate contact. Is that what a civilized society (that doesn't kill) would do? Or would you go the opposite extreme and make sure they can watch cable TV, lift weights, enjoy access to pornography and drugs and free sex, and hire a masseuse to boot?

I'd just like to know. What would your version look like?

[tekisui]

1. I am anti-Death Penalty in ALL cases.

First off, we need a complete overhaul of our prison system. Rehabilitation should be our first goal, then incarceration. Serial murderers and child rapists should face the harshest penalties. The serial murderers should be kept locked up for life, but I don't think society should give up on anyone, for they are products of our society. They can have lives of worth within prison, with a little creativity.

Many pedophiles cannot be permitted to re-enter society. However, many can lead lives outside prison, with constant supervision. And, they can be managed, watched and kept from harming others in society.

[sellitman]

2. I'm also anti-death penalty

Prisons need to neither be torture chambers or country clubs. State sponsored killing is just wrong.

[Catch22Dem]

12. I'm confused

"many can lead lives outside prison, with constant supervision. And, they can be managed, watched and kept from harming others in society"

Not much of a life is it? Personally, I don't want to see those people ever get out, but now you're talking about dedicating a person or staff of people to watch their every move day and night. Who is going to pay for that? Why not just keep them locked up? I'd say the crimes of a pedophile warrant it.

[tekisui]

50. They do this already.

I am not proposing something new. Registered sex offenders sometimes live in group homes and are supervised by their house leader and then at work. It is cheaper to monitor them that way then incarceration. And, they can still benefit society outside of prison.

Most pedophiles are diseased. It is incurable, and was probably done to them when they were children.

[mucifer]

3. do you really think access to weights and cable tv is "the other extreme"?

I used to visit people in prison. People who had access to weights tv and a library that had law books. It's not much of a life. The noise there is deafening on a constant basis. People would say "wow the visiting room is so quiet" It wasn't quiet at all. They had no idea what quiet meant anymore. It's a life of fear threats oppression etc. Some of that is because drugs are smuggled in by creative means. There are lots of gangs. I used to send in information on AIDS that people never got for no good reason, just because because guards like to mess with them.

[peacebird]

4. I don't think "victimless crimes" should ever result in jail. Hence - anyone caught in the

"war on drugs" would not be in jail UNLESS they were convicted of another crime (armed robbery, etc).

No one would be in jail for "morals" crimes such as prostitution.

People who commit violent crimes would be sentenced, with rehabilitation as the primary goal, and the death penalty would be off the books.

I do not believe the death penalty belongs in a "civilized" society. If someone is a Ted Bundy or other serious threat to others, then lock them up for life without chance of parole. Solitary confinement should only be used as a means of punishment for bad behaviour in prison, and not be a permanent situation - unless the inmate is a danger to other inmates or guards.

[Galway girl]

5. I am anti death penalty and pro life

I see these positions as the same . I find it curious that Dems are more likely to be anti death penalty yet pro choice and even more unusual Repubs are pro death penalty and pro life which I see as a complete contradiction. Spare me the arguments about guilt versus innocence on one side and the argument about when life begins on the other side . The bottom line is if you are pro life ie life is sacred you should not be pro death penalty . While it is quite easy to understand why women want abortions and why the victims want revenge the bottom line is life just ain't that easy.

It is the one gift we all have in common and we don't seem to value it enough .

To answer you're question a prisoner who gets life it should mean life (but with a chance of redemption) and in my prison he/she would be made carry out good works in prison untill he or she dies or is redeemed. So no to TV and no to Torture just make them do good work from inside the walls of the prison

[mucifer]

6. most dem politicians in high office are pro death penalty it's very sad.

It was a republican governor who happened to be a very corrupt politician who put a moritorium on the death penalty here in Illinois.

[riverdeep]

7. Thank you for coming closest, so far, in answering in specifics.

What would this good work be? What would happen to the prisoner if they refused? And lastly, how does 'life mean life' when there's a possibility of redemption (I'm assuming that means parole)?

I'll stay away from the pro life, pro choice views in fear of getting bogged down.

[Galway girl]

36. if they refuse ...they they stay in their cell untill they want to do something positive

It's quite simple really I believe they will find redemption in good acts and works whether they get their freedom or not . Redemption does not mean I would release them each situation is different. That is what the parole board are for

[seabeyond]

26. i am pro life too and because i feel we cant outlaw abortion is not saying i am not pro life

and you suggesting that means i am not pro life is offensive. one has to see that a fetus or an embryo is a life. it is clear to see that a human being standing there, even in all his/her bad is life. not so easy to declare what is "life" in preg. you have your conclusion hence your ability to declare abortion murder. but regardless of your own conviction you have to acknowledge there is a fuzziness there for others, not all having your belief system. you can say "spare me the argument" but just because you refuse to acknowledge people NOT thinking exactly like you does not make it irrelevent. you say you find it "curious", yet then refuse to allow others logically differeing views.

i cannot do death penalty for the simple fact i know there are innocent people being murdered. so all other moral issues are irrelevent to me seeing how murdering the innocent person ends discussion for me.

as for abortion? i dont know when life begins. i was never in a situation where i was to confront my beliefs on abortion. i would like to think i would not have gotten an abortion. but i have never had to put it to the test. i cannot decide for another on this issue. the best i can do, is not get an abortion myself and understand every single instant in abortion is unique and i have no way to qualify each choice being made by these women.

just like i cannot kill an innocent knowing they will slip by
i cannot outlaw abortion knowing some are just as life and death for the female.

i ask you though. is there any instance when abortion is valid. this is what i am truly curious about. that abortion is murder yet it is ok with rape, incest or females health.

there is no argument for contradiction and hypocrisy

which is why i cannot make the decisions on abortion. i understand there are reasons. and i cannot say, you can have one, and you cannot

[dysfunctional press]

30. pro death penalty and pro life positions are not contradictory.

you may need to add the word "innocent" to make it more understandable to you- as in "pro innocent life" fundies see the unborn fetus as a sin-free innocent, whereas a convicted killer is not, and deserving of capital punishment for their misdeeds.

[Aristus]

37. That argument doesn't make sense. Either life is sacred or it is not.

That is an argument that ought to appeal to black-and-white-no-gray-areas types, but it doesn't. The life of a person convicted of a crime might not be sacred to us, but it is sacred to God. The fact that the death penalty is so abused and misused in terms of who it is applied to means we must outlaw it. Killing in order to assert that killing is wrong is just plain idiotic, and unworthy of a civilized society.

If someone conceives, plans and carries out a killing with malicious intent, that's first-degree murder. Why is it different when the state does the same thing?

[dysfunctional press]

40. the word "innocent" makes ALL the difference to them.

and you'd also have a hard time convincing the 'live by the sword, die by the sword' types that their god considers the life of a murderer to be sacred, seeing that it ends them up in hell and all.

[doc03]

55. I don't think being pro-life and pro-death penalty

is contradictory at all. Pro-death penalty means if you take a life you should pay for it with your own, that is certainly more logical than being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty in my opinion. Here is what seems totally illogical to me, taking guns away from law abiding citizens to stop other people from committing murder, being pro-abortion and yet anti-death penalty that is completely nuts in my opinion.

[riverdeep]

8. I should add a strange thought I had after creating this post.

Pro death penalty people often argue that 'if this, this, and this were done, then the death penalty could be used'. Anti death penalty individuals shoot back with 'well, that'll never happen, so it can't be used, ever'.

Well, the real world of many maximum security prisons is a nightmare beyond belief for most people who aren't in the upper echelons of criminal ranks. Whatever shreds of humanity the criminals have left, are stripped away in prison. I don't need to get into it, you know. There is the perpetual call to reform, but reform is slow coming in the best of times, and in times like these, it's worse.

It occurs to me then, that I might actually be the compassionate one and you all the vindictive ones. Not in attitude, it's not intentional, but in effect. A quick, painless death compared to a lifetime of humiliation and boredom and beatings and rape. A situation that isn't going change anytime soon.

[CBGLuthier]

16. Lovely spin there

You would of course, allow the individual prisoner to make that choice instead of just "compassionately" killing them, right?

Also, I assume your knowledge about prison society is based on experience, correct?

Or did you just watch an Oz marathon on the teevee.

[riverdeep]

24. It's based mostly on talking with people who've been in prison.

I also was in prison for a month, but it was a minimum security work release deal. In any case, I know people who've done hard time. The experience can vary greatly, depending on the prison, when you were there, and your status in the criminal society. The scenario I placed above isn't unheard of.

I should add that the speculation on which side is harsher was just that, idle speculation.

[H2O Man]

9. Interesting question.

I'll start by saying that it is best answered as two distinct questions.

First, the debate over life in prison vs the death penalty can be best viewed as one of an individual's view on if the state should have the power to kill citizens. If one believes that the state should be able to kill people, then the question becomes one of in what circumstances: for murder? rape? Individuals who favor the death penalty can have different views on what crimes rise to the level of deserving the death penalty; an example worth noting is Barack Obama, who in his second book spoke of his views, which include being pro-death penalty in limited circumstances.

The anti-death penalty people (myself included) are opposed to the state killing people, for a variety of reasons. Many favor a sentence of life in prison without the possiblity of parole, in any case that may otherwise carry the potential of the death penalty. This means that they believe in taking the person off the street, and putting them in the custody of either their state's department of corrections, or in the federal system.

The second part of the question is, in my opinion, best viewed as distinct: it has to do with the treatment that an individual recieves while in prison. In this discussion, we are focusing on those who would be incarcerated for a violent crime (or crimes) that resulted in a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Without question, that individual is going to be placed in a maximum security prison when they first enter the system. Then they are under the control of the warden of the prison, who is expected to run the institution according to the policies and laws of that state.

This is why I am suggesting that the OP raises two (good) questions: even among those who are anti-death penalty, there will be significant differences of opinion on issues of incarceration -- just as there are among pro-death penalty people. We might identify these as issues involving "prison reform": some feel the system is too "soft" on criminals, while others feel it is too harsh. In both cases, these people want "reforms" to either make it harsher or more humane.

You raise interesting and important questions. I thank you for that.

[riverdeep]

11. Nice delineations.

Our desire to see the victim's feelings and value addressed will generally lead to a harshness model. Concern with the humane treatment of the prisoner, and a view of the prisoner as a victim himself, will generally lead to a softer model.

[annabanana]

18. Seeing the "victim's feelings and values addressed" is

highly dependent on the individual victim. I think this generalization is overbroad.

[H2O Man]

21. Valid points.

I think that we can break it down even further. I say this as a person who has had an uncle, a cousin, and three friends murdered, and a nephew brutally attacked by a racist hate gang. That has allowed me to not only examine my own feelings -- which have admittedly been "mixed" at various times over the years -- as well as other family and friends' feelings. More, we recently had a wonderful, yet painful OP by DUer "oktoberain," on the 13th anniversay of her father's brutal murder.

In Thomas Merton's classic book on Gandhi, he examined the contrast in beliefs about the forgiveableness of "sin." He uses some interesting historical examples: for instance, Hitler believed that certain people and behaviors could never be forgiven, and thus his views translated into a proposed "final" solution. He then lists another view, by noting Thomas Aquinas's view that the "sin" is punishment in and of itself. Of course, these two examples illustrate the extremes in human perception, and the vast majority of people fall in between these two.

It may be worth considering the differences in viewpoints of not only those who focus on victims' rights versus prisoners' rights -- because surely most people are capable of considering both -- but also of the distinctions between the greater societies' viewpoint and those of the criminals. The reason I say this is because, no matter what our view on crime & punishment, the fact is that the majority of people who enter the prison system will, at some point in time, be released into that greater society. I say this with no intention of claiming my views on crime and punishment are of more value than those who believe very differently than I do.

I live in rural upstate New York. From the mid-1980s to the present time, there have been only two actual "growth industries" of any significance: legalized gambling and the prison idustry. My younger son, who is returning to college in the fall, has recently worked in two facilities where young folks are "incarcerated": one was a brutal place, where the administration wanted to make use of my son's ability to "restrain" (and intimidate) the inmates. My son is a talented amateur boxer, who had no interest in being exploited in that way. He left because the institution only pretended to follow the rules and regulations in dealing with angry and often violent young people.

In his next job, he worked in a facility that was the extreme opposite: I have been friends with the fellow who set the policies for the place, since we worked together long ago at the same mental health clinic. He is a kind and gentle man, but he did not believe in any real consequences for any misbehavior. One young person punched my son, and the only consequence was that my son's supervisor told the person that "when you hit him, it showed disrespect for me." Please.

The young adults in both of these facilities will be released into society. Without risk of being wrong, I can predict most of them will act out in society, and will graduate at some time or another into the next level of incarceration. Neither the two facilities is going to protect society from crime, beyond housing these young folks for a period of time before releasing then recyling them.

Again, you raise important points, which are worthy of our attention. I do not think that there are simple answers, and so I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion.

[LakeSamish706]

10. I will add to this conversation by saying, I have two retired best friends...

that were Assistant Wardens in Maximum security prisons (both for about 30 to 40 years). Neither of these two people are pro death penalty, and having talked to them at length, neither are most of the prison staff of the prisons that they have worked in. For the record, I do not believe that a human being has a right to take another's life.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. Life in prison

means life in a cell, probably with a roommate. Very structured time, no privacy, but recreation time outside the cell, even a chance to take classes, etc. Could include counseling and substance abuse rehabilitation as well. Possibly includes participating in studies that might help us understand how this person came to become a criminal. Solitary confinement is not mandatory, but if the person's behavior in prison warrants it, then it could happen--but it would not automatically be a part of the sentence.

[madokie]

14. I do not believe in the death penalty, lifetime without the chance of parole for some

let me see if I can get this right, with the death penalty a person who is on death row can find Jesus and have their souls saved and then be looking forward to the day they go to the heavens. To those people death is not punishment. Pedophilia and rape should carry the harshest of penalties. imo

[Fumesucker]

15. Words have meanings..

Life without parole should mean you leave in a box.

It is my considered opinion that even a reasonably fair justice system is basically unattainable in America today.

A system that is blind to race, class and sex isn't on the horizon.

On Edit: There are ways to allow people to interact and not be completely alone that still allow for a maximum of personal protection, I see no reason to keep prisoners in forced solitary other than sheer vindictiveness.

[sshan2525]

17. No death penalty - period.

Until we end this monstrosity we are all collectively guilty of murder ourselves. We have no moral or logical standing to condemn murder until we condemn it in ALL circumstances. Having said that, you can lock up killers and baby rapists and such for as long as you want as far as I'm concerned. I don't want to hear the "cost" argument either. First, you can't morally trade a human life for a monitary amount. Second, if we'd stop incarcerating people for ridiculous things such as drug possesion, our prison population would shrink dramatically and we could concentrate on dealing with the people who actually belong there.

[Echo In Light]

22. Kudos

[JerseygirlCT]

32. Yup. nt

[SmileyRose]

19. I kinda like the punishment model from the late 1700's.

When someone stole or cheated or lied they got a nice dose of public humiliation for anything from a few hours to a few days and also had to make restitution. For those who were determined to maim and kill as long as there was breath in their body, there was the death penalty.

I guess what I'm saying is there are a heck of a lot of people in prison that likely shouldn't be. Drug addicts have no business in jail. People who really just need a decent education and opportunity and maybe a little mentoring in this life have no business in jail. The few that are left, those who will kill and maim and steal and threaten no matter where they are, should be put to death. If someone really is dangerous enough that they must be separated from the rest of the prison population because they are just too determined to kill, or manage to continue to run their criminal enterprises from inside prison - then I see no problem with removing them from all society all together. This should be of last resort when a person has demonstrated over a long period of time they will continue to find victims regardless of how many solitary confinements we put them into. -- and IMHO long term solitary is even more inhumane that sending their soul to the great beyond for another chance at whatever lies ahead.

[TexasObserver]

20. Life without parole, not life without mercy.

Treating prisoners inhumane is never acceptable, no matter what they did. That means they don't get solitary 23.5 hours a day unless they have shown they are incapable of functioning in the general population.

The punishment is their incarceration, their lack of freedom.

If your question is do I favor Draconian treatment of lifers, the answer is NO. If your question is do I favor lifers having some semblance of a daily life, the answer is YES.

How we punish prisoners is about US, not THEM.

[LanternWaste]

23. Odd that anyone on this thread would make even the slightest hin

Odd that anyone on this thread would make even the slightest hint that prison is a country club.

My father spent three years in in the state pen (Huntsville), and three in Federal (FCI- Ft Worth) in the early to mid seventies. Neither institution was fun and games for him-- up until the day of death in '91, it wasn't uncommon for him to wake up screaming from nightmares about the time he'd done.

It's just as bad as most people hope prison would be-- rapes, horrible medical care, rotted food, etc. He certainly didn't have access to porn, cable, free sex, etc.

As per him, at its best, prison was almost as relaxing as boot camp. At its worst, it was a place where a lot of people simply gave up on life and themselves and committed suicide.


For my part, I believe prison should be a humane institution meeting basic emotional, physical, safety, medical, and educational needs. Access to a library, access to some television, access to other people for some basic examples.

The fact that the person is quite separated from the outside world for years at a time is much worse punishment in and of itself than most of us will ever realize.

[Echo In Light]

28. Damn liberals, and their incessant coddling of criminals!

:sarcasm:

;)

[JerseygirlCT]

33. I like this:

"The fact that the person is quite separated from the outside world for years at a time is much worse punishment in and of itself than most of us will ever realize."

Which brings us to the point of prison: is it punishment or the safety of society?

[LanternWaste]

34. Absolutely no idea.

"is it punishment or the safety of society?"

(I love DU!-- for every question that's asked, I realize how little I really know...)

Absolutely no idea. I would hazard a guess that it *attempts* to be both-- but I think it's skewed towards punishment in its current incarnation.

[JerseygirlCT]

43. Well, I don't either, if that helps

I think that's probably one of those big questions that people are simply not going to agree about.

My priority, personally, is the general safety of society. I do understand the need for punishment - mostly as a deterrent, I suppose.

But I also agree with those who have said that our prison system is clogged with non-violent offenders - drugs mainly - who really need medical care, not imprisonment. Prison just starts a generational cycle, it seems: kids growing up without parents aren't in the best spot to grow up safely.

[mike_c]

25. it means humane incarceration-- and I'll go even further....

Revenge is the absolute WORST form of punishment because it usually produces no benefit at all for society other than to segregate dangerous individuals. If isolating those folks from the rest of us is the only social benefit, then it's the only one that really counts, IMO. The conditions of segregation should be as humane and comfortable as we can make them-- anything else is just revenge, and that reflects badly on society as a whole. The premise that it's wrong to administer cruel and unusual punishment is founded on this ideal: the purpose of punishment should be loftier than simple revenge against criminals, since revenge can be had far more cheaply and easily than anything we currently do, even in the roughest justice in America.

[seabeyond]

27. i know a lot of people like to say these prisons are country clubs, hence

your description. i do not believe they are.

life in prison is keep them from society where they can ever do harm again

[LWolf]

29. I guess that depends on your views on the purpose of prison.

For the record, I don't support the death penalty in any form, for any reason.

From my view, prison has 3 purposes:

1. To serve as a deterrent. There is a portion of the population that will avoid crimes to avoid losing their freedom.

2. To rehabilitate. I don't care what the crime was, or how long the person will spend in prison. A responsible society, in recognition of their humanity, should offer lifelong opportunities to rehabilitate.

3. To protect the public. I don't care whether the person is rehabilitated or not. Anyone who poses a danger to the public, anyone who has the slightest chance of offending again, needs to stay put. It's not a punishment, but a protection of everyone else.

How should prisoners live? They should live in solitary. For anyone who has a chance of being released at any point in time, allowing them to assimilate the current prison culture sets them up to fail when they are released. Adequate contact can be had from visitors, counselors, and spiritual leaders of a desired faith. Provide them with tv. Even with a computer, as long as there is no email or internet connection. Connection to a prison server with a variety of resources. Education, library services. Food, clothing, the opportunity to bathe and be well groomed, and adequate health care. That's not torture. It's more than many free citizens have.

[JerseygirlCT]

31. I think their state of interaction with others depends

not on their sentence, but on their behavior.

To me life without parole means that: they move in and never move out.

Personally, I don't think we need to provide cable tv, etc. Books are good - and education so that they can read if needed.

I think the things like tv are there more for those in charge of the prisoners - that is, as a tool to help keep things under control. I don't think anyone is "owed" that.

I'm not sure I agree that solitary is torture.

[AccessGranted]

35. When You Work In The Legal System You See Many Mistakes

People get convicted on errors and technicalities and misidentification and other failings of the legal system or confused witnesses and shouldn't be in jail in the first place as they didn't commit the crime, so I'm still a bit torn on the death penalty. Still going back and forth on that one. I think what if it was my son on death row for a crime he didn't commit, but was convicted for by mistake for whatever reason. Or what if it was the person that killed or injured my son? How then would I feel about the death penalty? It's complicated.

[doc03]

38. Here's a question for the anti-death crowd

Here is a link to the story of Eugene Blake, he murdered at least three people and raped at least three people. He was given life without mercy for a murder then released a few years later and he murdered and raped again and was jailed the second time and was due for release again in 2011. Just recently they found through DNA evidence he also murdered a young man and raped his girlfriend while he was on parole back in 1981. These are the ones we know about he could have murdered or raped others since while in prison he was a trustee and could practicly come and go as he wanted and who would have suspected him he was supposedly locked up. Read all the articles on this man and tell me the SOB shouldn't be executed.

http://www.news-register.net/page/content.detail/id/510638.html

[rug]

39. The SOB shouldn't be executed.

:hi:

[doc03]

42. Read all the stories about him and you

will want to push the button yourself.

[MedleyMisty]

44. We are all not exactly like you

and a lot of us will not have the same emotional reaction.

[doc03]

52. So you are going to rehabilitate him? n/t

[Lyric]

41. There's a logical problem.

Does that mean 23 1/2 hours a day in solitary confinement? Cause that's a form of torture. People can and do go crazy without adequate contact. Is that what a civilized society (that doesn't kill) would do? Or would you go the opposite extreme and make sure they can watch cable TV, lift weights, enjoy access to pornography and drugs and free sex, and hire a masseuse to boot?

Actually, it's only cruel if the inmate is being forced into solitary against their will. There are inmates who actually *prefer* solitary. There are also inmates whose crimes are so bad that putting them into general population would be torture and/or murder, and there are inmates who are, themselves, a danger to other prisoners. Those inmates generally get sent off to places like the Supermax, where solitary is the norm, not the exception, and they eat with cornstarch sporks for the rest of their lives.

As for what recreational activities I'd allow prisoners--the same that they are allowed now. The reason that prison inmates have amenities like cable TV, weight sets, books, playing cards, basketballs, magazines, etc. is twofold: it helps keep the prisoners from getting bored enough to hurt each other, and it gives the warden and guards leverage...a "privilege" to take away if someone breaks a rule. Since torture into submission is not a legal option, there has to be SOME way for the prison system to keep the inmates under control, without violating the "cruel and unusual punishment" ban in the Constitution. Revoking recreational privileges and visiting privileges works out well for all parties involved, because even "lifers" have "something to lose" if they misbehave and cause trouble.

[MyNameGoesHere]

45. I am against the DP. But since it is law

it should be televised and executioners should be drafted randomly from society. I pay for this shit, and i want it out in the open what it means to kill someone.

[hunter]

46. Maybe we could put those who support state sanctioned murder in prison to find out?

"Death Penalty" is a euphemism for state sanctioned murder, and it's always been and always will be a tool of terror implemented by police states.

Civilized nations do not murder people, even those who commit terrible, terrible crimes.

There are too many people in U.S. prisons who don't belong there -- mentally ill people, people with drug problems, and uneducated people who are simply chronic screw-ups without the skills to function in ordinary society. If we provided these people with the treatment and skills they need to function in ordinary society there would be plenty of room in the prisons and resources to humanly incarcerate the true monsters among us.

[riverdeep]

48. Find out what?

That it sucks? We already know, that's why we put them there.

I absolutely agree our system is filled with people who don't belong there. Non-violent drug users that need treatment-not jail, with the mentally ill who need therapy-not jail. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by screw-ups. If a screw-up commits a violent act or act injurious to society, they belong in prison, regardless of the reasons. Same goes for drug users. If you commit a terrible act under the influence of drugs, so what. It still happened and you were responsible for ingesting drugs and for everything you did while under the influence. Only the mentally ill incapable of knowing what they were doing get a pass.

Having said that, I don't think it's about space. Even if there were 100,000 empty cells, a death penalty for certain crimes would still be needed.

[hunter]

49. I thought we put them there to keep them off the streets...

Punishment is entirely ineffective for some people, especially sociopaths. They don't give a damn about other people or consequences, and punishment only hardens them.

The nature of your original post was entirely transparent, but I thought I'd play anyways...

So you say "a death penalty for certain crimes would still be needed."

Which crimes?

And suppose society gets all foaming-at-the-mouth worked up and excited about the supposed crimes of someone who is innocent? Can we bring them back to life after the state has murdered them?

[XemaSab]

47. I think we should have a special prison for people who are in for life

It would be much less draconian than existing prisons, but everyone in there is in there forever.

[doc03]

53. A cemetery would be appropriate. n/t

[Bluebear]

51. "Cable TV, lift weights, masseuse",,,,what right-wing fantasy of prison is this?

[EFerrari]

56. No kidding. Makes me want to go out and break a law.

lol

[Critters2]

54. I believe the justice system should first be concerned about public safety.

So, if the courts rule that a person is too dangerous to ever be out of prison, that person needs to be in a facility that is adequately secure so that he/she will not be able to escape. Once that requirement is met, Other issues matter little to me. Those incarcerated should have a decent life, and should themselves be safe from violence whether from other inmates or from guards. 23 1/2 hour solitary would only be necessary for those for whom this is necessary for their own safety or that of others. I'm not focused on punishment, so I wouldn't want it for that reason.

As for the other things you name: No reason they shouldn't watch cable TV. Weights would be fine unless there's reason to believe strengthening a prisoner will make him/her dangerous to others. Same for porn. Illegal drugs are illegal. Should be so for everyone, until that law changes. Their contact with the outside world would be limited--again for safety reasons, making sex unlikely. Same with massage. They would interact only with those inside, and limited visits with others.

Prison shouldn't be brutal. It should be livable.