Sorry, maybe I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be:
I wasn't trying to suggest any new plans, I'm fully aware of the fact that these plans are already in place in several places across the nation. (I particularly like the Oklahoma State Pen. Policy of total lockdown, that's what I was trying to emulate.) However, I do believe that they need to be more strictly applied on a more national level. For instance: when a person is sentenced to death, and lets say the case was that they raped and murdered a woman and then killed her father who arrived unexpectedly on the scene to cover it up, but they left their own blood and the victim's blood all over the place...yada yada yada. (I won't get too detailed) This was collected and it was clear the perpetrator did it..case closed.
They get sentenced to death. However, what I am against is even for those who have massive evidence to suggest guilt, the condemned usually get an average of 10-15 years on Death Row because of appeals at the least. Why should the country have to pay for their care and such? Why, when its clearly a malicious psychopath we're dealing with here, do we have to go through dozens of automatic appeals when there is no evidence to suggest that person might in fact be innocent? For instance: Scott Peterson has about a 50-50 chance of spending at least half of the remainder of his life of Death Row before his execution date is even set. Why is that? Everyone knows he did it. Why do we mess around with worthless apeal cases? Just one example.
Furthermore, sure, without TV, prison would even be more of a living hell as you put it. Who cares? If its a semi-max or even maximum security facility, why should they get any priveleges whatsoever? A person who has life without perole did something really bad, in the vast majority of cases. They will never leave that prison. Good. If they killed someone either out of passion or greed or just because they're a sociopath, why do they deserve any priveleges, unless they prove that they can handle those priveleges?
And then you say that prisons are a living hell because of gang-rapes and murders. Where do all these things happen? In ungaurded cells or in the yard. Prison gangs shouldn't even be allowed to exist. If so many prisoner-prisoner crimes occur, lock 'em all up. Again, the Oklahoma State Pen, for example, has been on total lockdown since a series of jailbreak riots occured about a decade ago in which several gaurds were killed. Prisoners are allowed 1 hour per day of heavily secured yard time where there every action is watched by gaurds with shotguns. Otherwise, they're only allowed to come out if they have a very important visitor or if they have a prison job. That's it. The rest of the day, they're in their cells. And there's not been a single act of violence in years, of course, on prison grounds.
Here's a little tidbit of info:
In several prisons across the country, convicted felons are allowed to play violent video games on computers. May I ask who thought that was a good idea? How are they going to get reabilitated into society that way?
Generally, what I like to say is my belief is that if would-be violent felons criminals know, either through a PR campaign or some other means, or just through the grapevine, that if they assuault with a deadly weapon or kill or rape or do all three, they are going to a place where they are locked up in cages like animals for 23 hours a day, no freedoms except for those earned through extremely good behavior and display of willingness to be rehabilitated, yada yada yada, they won't commit as many crimes. Several criminals have lives that are worse than many prisons are today. So, they look at it as they don't lose much if they go to jail, and a reward might await them if they sucessfully commit their crime without being captured. If you make prisons the worst place in America, and I mean the worst, so that even a bum living on the street who gets beaten up every day wouldn't want to go there, do you think the crime rate will decrease? Of course.
And people ramble on about how prisoners are entitled to rights, yada yada yada, they're already too mistreated, uh-huh...goes on and on and on. IF you deliberately hurt someone for your own gain, should you be entitled to any rights? I certainly don't think so? Anyone who does can explain themselves to me, and I'll be around to listen: but, if don't agree with me, then present your own strategy for lowering crime in America.
™ Version 4.2
