This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
Pwntiff
Since I nearly decided to serve on ballistic missile submarines, I may be biased. I think there is a value in strategic deterrence, but I think there would be more value in every country completely disarming themselves (of nuclear weapons). Since that won't happen for a very long time, if it ever does, countries will rationalize the need to have deterrent capabilities.
The big issue with Trident is it's a Cold War mentality. Granted, Russia or China might at some point plunge the world into another Great War, but overall warfare has changed since the development of the MAD strategy. If an Ohio-class submarine were fully loaded with as many warheads as it could potentially carry (due to treaties and reasons for choosing to use one or more missile tubes for other purposes, this wouldn't happen except potentially a situation of total war), only four countries would have more warheads than a single submarine. That's a scary thought.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#15: Do prisoners have too many comforts, such as cable and internet, while incarcerated?
Post by
Atik
It very much depends on the prison.
However, I feel many do.
Kid from the street, who is scraping from the bottom of the barrel to get by, breaks the law and gets sent to prison.
There, he is given three meals a day, protection from the elements, a bed, a 'room', and many other things that they would only have in their dreams before breaking the law.
I understand this is the absolute most over-the-top example of such situations, but it gets the idea across.
Jails are no longer punishments, I feel.
Post by
Ksero
It very much depends on the prison.
However, I feel many do.
Kid from the street, who is scraping from the bottom of the barrel to get by, breaks the law and gets sent to prison.
There, he is given three meals a day, protection from the elements, a bed, a 'room', and many other things that they would only have in their dreams before breaking the law.
I understand this is the absolute most over-the-top example of such situations, but it gets the idea across.
Jails are no longer punishments, I feel.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Not to bring up old debates, but I missed a few days. Did you know that salvation army bell ringers keep like 50-60% of all the money they collect? It's a job, not a volunteer thing. If you want to donate to the salvation army, do it directly.
Post by
Rankkor
It very much depends on the prison.
However, I feel many do.
Kid from the street, who is scraping from the bottom of the barrel to get by, breaks the law and gets sent to prison.
There, he is given three meals a day, protection from the elements, a bed, a 'room', and many other things that they would only have in their dreams before breaking the law.
I understand this is the absolute most over-the-top example of such situations, but it gets the idea across.
Jails are no longer punishments, I feel.
Depends on the country, very much so. I can tell you without hesitation that is NOT the case in most of south america and specially south africa.
Ever seen prison break? you saw the third season? the prison of "SONA"? you'd be scared to know just how realistic that prison was in regards to how prisons are handled on so many south american countries.
Post by
gamerunknown
I was seeing the UK's subs as a nuke deterrent to Russia/China/N Korea etc.
Well, the UK has open trade with the first two countries at least, though the first country doesn't have the best relations with us. I highly doubt there are any targets for a nuclear attack which wouldn't be met with widescale devastation and lamenting though.
As for jails: I don't really mind the concept of a debtors prison, where if someone is in dire enough financial straits they can enter a place to work without being overwhelmed by interest repayments or going bankrupt. I don't know of any cases of people deliberately committing crimes in order to go to prison, but I do feel a debtors prison would be superior to having a felony on one's record.
I think prison is best when it is reformist rather than penal. In that respect, I think
Norwegian prisons are among the best in the world
, judging by their recidivism rates. Would people rather have more victims sated by the punishment or fewer victims in the first pace?
Edit: Oh yeah, food brushes are a thing right? Also, I'm going to bake a pretty cake for my mother's birthday on Wednesday. Since she's American and it's America day it'll probably be the stars and stripes with blueberries and strawberries. And look and taste horrible because I can't cook, unless I coopt my 12 year old sister into doing it (she's seriously a lot better than I am).
Post by
612548
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Gamer- wait. You don't believe that someone who is broke should be without the general comforts in life (as gathered from stance that quite a bit should be provided by the government), but people who are broke should go to jail for not being able to pay their bills? Please explain to me how people have a right to be given so much by society, funded by taxes, but not the right to remain free when something happens and they can't pay their bills? How is this a good solution when so many people who are in debt are supporting families, raising kids as a single parent, etc.? The disconnect between those two ideas seems to be really stark to me, so I'm wondering how you can believe them both? For someone who is awfully concerned with how easy it is for people to go into debt, you seem really unconcerned about criminalizing it.
In fact, I'm starting to wonder exactly what kind of a world you want, Gamer. You want the government to provide most things, and don't think capitalism works. You think that all means of production should be shared by the workers. You are morally unopposed to mind control drugs both in prison and for menial workers, and you think that people who are poor should be institutionalized if they can't pay their bills. Do you really want some kind of authoritarian state where no one owns anything, they live in government provided work-housing, and have all decisions made for them while they're fed mind-control drugs so they don't worry about whether or not they're happy? Do you really trust other people with that much control over your life?
@ Atik- In terms of what Atik says, if someone's life is so miserable that they're basically without shelter or food, that's sad. If you think that's how we need to treat prisoners in order to make prison seem less "attractive" that's bizarre. I think people are discussing free education, recreational programs and the like with regards to prison. I don't think people are contemplating whether giving them food, heat and not making them sleep on a floor in their own filth is too much. I kind of worry that you think that food and living under basic conditions IS something we should think about taking away from prisoners.
@ OP - In terms of the general question, I imagine that a lot of people who haven't been to prison (which includes me) might not have a realistic idea of what it's like to be inside one. It's hard for me to tell you what they do or don't have too much of, because there are such widely varied anecdotes about how easy or hard it is to go through the prison system, and how much or how little access and freedom they have, that I doubt I have a very real idea about what it is like.
That being said, I have an idea about how it SHOULD run. I think that prisons should pay for themselves by operating as manufacturers. I'm talking about normal 8-hour workdays, 40 hours a week (nothing someone might consider abusive) in safe conditions, either growing food or making supplies for the prison, or manufacturing things to sell to fund the prison. At that point, you'd have a far lower drain on the state by prisons, there would be less recreational time to worry about filling so that prisoners don't go stir-crazy, and many people would leave having learned marketable job skills. And, if they money was enough that there were some comforts afforded by it (nothing outlandish, but basic cable or new books), there would be less concern about what they were being "given," because they'd be earning all of it. I think people who have the ability to provide for themselves should, and being imprisoned because you did something wrong shouldn't relieve you of the responsibility.
Also, I think that under that kind of a system, offering education would be a great idea. It's not really free, remember- they are working full time to support themselves and the prison programs. But it would be a way to return to society with more ability to support yourself. I think a lot of property crime is linked to need, and that a lot of people would prefer a different path. If prison time lets them earn a degree and work off the funds needed to pay for these programs, then it would be both fair and probably helpful in lowering repeat offenses.
I don't think they should be supplied with anything that would be a real luxury, or anything self-destructive. No reason for them to have access to cigarettes, video games, etc. It should still be a punishment, but it should be balanced around being self-sustaining, and recognizing that the more prepared they are when they rejoin society the better chance they won't end up back in there.
Post by
MyTie
I'm much more for the idea of permanent exile, instead of long term incarceration. Brand them with a mark, and make it illegal to do business with marked people, at the risk of getting a mark yourself. Then, let them go. Without being about to buy food, etc, they will seek living arrangements in another country.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I'm much more for the idea of permanent exile, instead of long term incarceration. Brand them with a mark, and make it illegal to do business with marked people, at the risk of getting a mark yourself. Then, let them go. Without being about to buy food, etc, they will seek living arrangements in another country.
For which types of crimes, or all of them?
Post by
MyTie
I'm much more for the idea of permanent exile, instead of long term incarceration. Brand them with a mark, and make it illegal to do business with marked people, at the risk of getting a mark yourself. Then, let them go. Without being about to buy food, etc, they will seek living arrangements in another country.
For which types of crimes, or all of them?
On the 2nd non-consecutive felony, or 7th non-consecutive misdemeanor, or there-abouts. I'm looking at repeat customers, people dependent on the system.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
Not to bring up old debates, but I missed a few days. Did you know that salvation army bell ringers keep like 50-60% of all the money they collect? It's a job, not a volunteer thing. If you want to donate to the salvation army, do it directly.
Not quite...at least not as I read your post, but I could be reading it wrong.
Some bell ringers are paid, some are volunteers. The wage for bell ringers is usually minimum wage. They
DO NOT
get a a "cut" of what the kettle brings in.
As for directly donating...do you think the rest of the SA is made up of unpaid volunteers? For that matter, I can't think of any major charity that has no operating costs, so regardless of who you choose to donate to, there will always be some portion of your contribution that goes toward salary or rent or utilities, its all about how efficient a charity is run.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Magician- I used to do first and second round interviews for a marketing company- sometimes like 20-30 a week, because of the high turnover. They were sales positions, and there weren't a lot of qualifications other than being willing to show up and work on commission. A lot of people were interviewing for everything in the newspaper, and more than one told me they had applied for that bell ringing job and been told it was on commission- a.k.a. they get 50% of the collection. Also, we set up events at a lot of retail stores where we got to know the bell-ringers, and though most were reluctant to talk about it, at least one I remember confirmed it. This was probably 8 years ago, so it may have changed, but it was definitely something that used to happen.
I'm not saying that it's wrong to work for a charity. What I'm saying is that professional fundraising that is commission based takes a hefty percentage of the money gathered, before they even have to worry about administrative costs and salaries of the core employees of the charity. Most of it is farmed out to professional fundraising companies, who turn over from 50% (on straight collections) to as little as 5-10% (on merchandise-based fundraising). If you want to contribute, it's far better to send the money to the charity, than to send it to the professional fundraiser, because it halves the effectiveness of your donation, before they even have to account for basic operating costs. I understand that charities need to have salaried employees to function- I just also know how many sales companies there are that make a lot of money selling in the name of a charity that sees a very small percentage of what is sold. To be fair, most of the salespeople don't even realize how little of the money made actually goes to the charity- when I started with a company like that, they flat out lied to me about it when I asked, and I only found out much later, and only after I had relocated to another state for a pending promotion. I quit that job for a whole lot of reasons, not the least of which was the lying and the much lower percentage that they were sending over than I thought. I have a very good idea about how much BS is involved with professional fundraising.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rystrave
Send all the murderers, rapists, and multiple offenders to Alcatraz. The scum of the earth deserves to live through hell.
Post by
Rankkor
Send all the murderers, rapists, and multiple offenders to Alcatraz. The scum of the earth deserves to live through hell.
Despite all the publicity it has gotten (extremely overhyped lemme tell ya) Alcatraz is not really THAT bad as far as prisons goes. I can name you off the top of my head 10 prisons from ukrania, russia, venezuela, cuba, panama, uganda, and somalia that make Alcatraz look like a Hilton Hotel by comparison.
ohh and China, how could I forget chinese prisons :P
Post by
Atik
@ Atik- In terms of what Atik says, if someone's life is so miserable that they're basically without shelter or food, that's sad. If you think that's how we need to treat prisoners in order to make prison seem less "attractive" that's bizarre. I think people are discussing free education, recreational programs and the like with regards to prison. I don't think people are contemplating whether giving them food, heat and not making them sleep on a floor in their own filth is too much. I kind of worry that you think that food and living under basic conditions IS something we should think about taking away from prisoners.
I'm mostly talking about major criminals, obviously. Murderers and the like.
Joe Shmoe who shoplifted one too many times? Give him his shelter and three meals a day. If he's good and wants to watch some TV for a bit? Sure, go on and let him see who's winning American Idol.
But for real criminals? I don't think they should be allowed any sort of luxary shrot of their tiny room with minimal lighting, and enough food to keep them alive. Make them know the real consequences of what they've done.
Post by
Interest
It very much depends on the prison.
However, I feel many do.
Kid from the street, who is scraping from the bottom of the barrel to get by, breaks the law and gets sent to prison.
There, he is given three meals a day, protection from the elements, a bed, a 'room', and many other things that they would only have in their dreams before breaking the law.
I understand this is the absolute most over-the-top example of such situations, but it gets the idea across.
Jails are no longer punishments, I feel.
Honestly, the problem could be completely the other way around. i.e. it's a problem with the quality of life outside of the prison (after all life in prison has to be humane).
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.