Kevin's Watch

What they suffered isn't reduced by forcing the person who did it to suffer either though.

Like it or not, it comes down to a very simple principle: Do we believe in the values we claim to espouse or don't we?

If we do, how can we punish one person for somebody else's transgression? (As an example.) Either we uphold those principles, or we admit that prison is not about punishment, but about revenge.

--A

You lost me there Av. How did we go from a person in prison for other trangressions who commits further crimes without any real consequences being punished to punishing someone else for somebody else's transgressions. I'm confused.

..What do you mean,, " stopped him" ? There is no stop. Time continues. A prisoners mental and physical state isn't stopped. Both are subject to the conditions that are subject to. Most prisoners are subject to,,coming a part..that is,,loosing their mind, I believe the long term prisoners,,all,, sooner or later,,come a part. The awareness of coming a part by the prisoner,,in some cases,,is what turns a prisoner to becoming states evidence..The non-awareness of coming a part,,in some cases,, is what turns prisoners into stark raving raping and killing fece throwing maniacs. You put even a sane person in prison and its only a matter of time, before they come a part. That is the carrot in front of the donkey. Do the crime..you're going to do the Time. That doin Time is considered in some circles as an honor, a right of passage,, is the sickest insanity of an already sick situation.

The debate over rehabilitation or not is olde. The Quakers way back ,, initiated the idea of rehab of Prisoners..Apply bell curve to the population and of course,, there will be success and there will be failure...Just understand that you are dealing with fringes of the Bell curve from the start...If there is a employee in the incarceration business who doesn't know they are in the realm of HELL..then they shouldn't be there...imho.

Jenn wrote:Who cares about the victims and the loved ones of the victims or what they suffered at the hands of the criminals...

I think everybody does. But everybody doesn't want a random punishment executed by the fellow inmates.

Avatar wrote:What they suffered isn't reduced by forcing the person who did it to suffer either though.

Like it or not, it comes down to a very simple principle: Do we believe in the values we claim to espouse or don't we?

If we do, how can we punish one person for somebody else's transgression? (As an example.) Either we uphold those principles, or we admit that prison is not about punishment, but about revenge.

--A

Corporal punishment isn't about sadism. It's about associating physical pain with a transgression. It's simple conditioning, at it's lowest form.

And I wouldn't have much problem with it being doled out to the person who committs the offence.

Jenn, as Prebe mentioned, I was talking about punishing other prisoners for the misdeeds of just one.

I do get the whole "punish everybody, soon they'll enforce the rules themselves" idea, but I'm not sure it's compatible with what I believe.

--A

Dealing with prisoners isn't an easy issue. These are people who's basic rights we as a society have stripped. So, what's left?

I don't necessarily feel like there aren't some crimes make a man deserve death, I only oppose the states right to dole out that punishment. (It is already abused enough)

So what can we do? What's *right*? We have stripped people of most of their freedoms, what is wrong and what is right? If this question were easy to answer surely to GOD we would have a better system than the unquestionably ridiculous one we have now.

Hahaha, the eternal question...

--A

plissken - state prisons are not run for profit. private prisons are run for profit and they keep egtting sued for mismanagement and abuse.

tom - many inmates feel that we can not touch them because they have so much time to serve. this brought the creation of super seg prisons.

ali - we all get hazardous duty pay. but it isn't that much. the difference in pay? all depends on state by state wages. the feds pay more across the board.

Holsety - once an inmate goes to super seg prisons, i believe that we can all give up on rehab. they are horrible places that are unfortuantely necessary for the safety of staff, the prison populace and the community. those prisons are for inmates who escape, murder, rape and otherwise disrupt while in prison.

avatar - people don't like spending on prisons. they tend to confuse more money with being soft on criminals.

dreaming - the aclu will fight corporal punishment on any level.

jenn - there was a time that victims and their families were barred from making impact statements. we have a lawyer in Mass who advocates tearing apart children who have been raped. and that asshole still hasn't been tarred and feathered yet.

washingtonexaminer.com/convicted-wife-murderer-gets-taxpayer-funded-sex-change/article/2506889

Convicted wife-murderer gets taxpayer-funded sex change


September 4, 2012 | 3:07 pm
118Comments

Timothy P. Carney
Senior political columnist
The Washington Examiner

Robert Kosilek was married to a woman. Then he murdered her and went to prison, where he changed his name to Michelle and began identifying as a woman.

Now a federal judge in Boston has ruled that Kosilek is entitled to a taxpayer-funded sex-change operation because he has “gender-identity disorder.”

“Everybody has the right to have their health care needs met, whether they are in prison or out on the streets,” the AP quotes Kosilek as saying. “People in the prisons who have bad hearts, hips or knees have surgery to repair those things. My medical needs are no less important or more important than the person in the cell next to me.”

Prison guards are concerned about his safety when he becomes a she in a men’s prison.

Need I say more??????????????????????????

Saw this earlier. Still doesn't make any sense

1) Gender change operation is a 'cosmetic surgery'
2) I think PC-speaking, anything to do with 'gender-identity' is not a disorder.

the judge needs to be fired and sent to prison himself.

Strange story...just saw it myself. I don't think it's considered cosmetic if there are psychological implications. I'm not sure this counts as a medical need though, unless...what...they worry he'll go crazy if he doesn't get it?

Not sure the government should be paying for it either.

--A

Avatar wrote:Strange story...just saw it myself. I don't think it's considered cosmetic if there are psychological implications. I'm not sure this counts as a medical need though, unless...what...they worry he'll go crazy if he doesn't get it?

Not sure the government should be paying for it either.

--A

The man is in prison for life, until such time as he leaves in the proverbial "Pine box". Who gives a rats ass if he feels like he's not the correct gender? I'm not to keen on prisons giving anything but basic care to inmates sentenced to "life" in prison. Need a new kidney or liver? Tough shit! The sentence didn't say "long life", just until the inmate dies of natural causes (or even realistically, unnatural causes)

Would anyone have batted a whisker if he had had his worn out hip fixed?

Is it reasonable that any medical procedure is performed on inmates?

I can certainly understand that people would protest ANY medical aid -granted to inmates - that was not freely available to the general public.

Edit: I see now, that RR has made his stand clear on the issue, althoug, perhaps, he needs to define what "basic" care is.

Your feelings are (understandably) offended by this story. You then go on to make a very categorical statement without actually pondering the implications.

The idea to what medical care should be provided to inmates should be based on a sort of 'cruel and unusual' clause. That is, I think we have laws against 'cruel and unusual' punishments. So the medical care provided to inmates should offered only if the denial thereof is 'cruel and unusual'. This, of course, needs stringent defining in a world where lawyers exist.

Orlion wrote:This, of course, needs stringent defining in a world where lawyers exist.

Interesting paradox there

Need a sex change and can't afford it, commit a crime and presto! problem solved.

Prebe wrote:Would anyone have batted a whisker if he had had his worn out hip fixed?

Is it reasonable that any medical procedure is performed on inmates?

I can certainly understand that people would protest ANY medical aid -granted to inmates - that was not freely available to the general public.

Edit: I see now, that RR has made his stand clear on the issue, althoug, perhaps, he needs to define what "basic" care is.

Your feelings are (understandably) offended by this story. You then go on to make a very categorical statement without actually pondering the implications.

PHOENIX (AP) — An Arizona woman is wondering what hurt more: getting stung by a scorpion or seeing her hospital bill after treatment.

Marcie Edmonds says the bill from Chandler Regional Medical Center was more than $83,000. That includes two doses of anti-venom at nearly $40,000 per dose.

The Arizona Republic says Edmonds' insurer has paid more than $57,000 and the suburban Phoenix hospital is asking Edmonds for the balance of about $25,000.

The 52-year-old Ahwatukee (ah-wha-TU'-kee) Foothills resident was stung in June while opening a box of air conditioner filters in her garage.

Edmonds says an emergency room doctor told her about the Mexican anti-venom Anascorp that could quickly relieve her symptoms, but she was never told about the cost.

Chandler Regional says Edmonds' bill represents the out-of-network costs for her treatment.

Prebe - this is the country we live in. woman could lose everything she has worked for due to hugely unfair medical bills. she follows the law, works, seems to do everything right.

a pos inmate has some idiot judge deciding that taxpayers will foot the bill for his sex change. scumbag gets ahead in life by committing crimes.

Prebe wrote:Would anyone have batted a whisker if he had had his worn out hip fixed?

Is it reasonable that any medical procedure is performed on inmates?

I can certainly understand that people would protest ANY medical aid -granted to inmates - that was not freely available to the general public.

Edit: I see now, that RR has made his stand clear on the issue, althoug, perhaps, he needs to define what "basic" care is.

Your feelings are (understandably) offended by this story. You then go on to make a very categorical statement without actually pondering the implications.

Definition of basic care: Preventative medications, palatives, treatment for ordinary ailments that don't involve heroic treatments (hip replacements, liver transplants, gender reassignments, etc.)