Conference back40::soapbox

    Antartica?

    
         The guards will be Polar bears, anyone who tries to escape
    is food.
    
       

    
    
    I'm sure Topes can suggest a place... perhaps some island in Ohio???
    

    Nah, King's Island is too small, and only has water on one side.

    
    .4
    
    What's on the other side?
    

    
    <---- Cleveland

    Thought they tried that at Alcatraz (sp?).
    
    Good idea, better build a few huts though, so that the'll have
    somewhere to put their color tellys.

    
    "We're sending you to Monster Island, but don't let the name worry you;
    it's really more like a peninsula."
    

    
    re: .7
    
    >Monster Island
    
    
    aka Manhattan...
    

	Joan has been watching the Simpsons again..... heh heh...

Quick, name an island that's not off-shore.



Coney Island.

    
       .11 Coney Island... Isn't that a restaurant in Worcester?

>Quick, name an island that's not off-shore.



 Grand Island, Nebraska

Doesn't it cost something like $40,000/year to keep someone in the
can? The base note was (believe it or not) serious. Any serious
comments now that we don't have OJ to kick around anymore?

Pete

    re .2
    
    Anartica does not have Polar bears.  They live in the Artic.

   .15    Whoops! got my Geography mixed up.
    
       Well, we could ship some there?
    
     

    You could use killer penguins as guards.

that's not humane, man! 

    
    > You could use killer penguins as guards.
    
    Ah yes, Sister Margaret. I remember her.
    
    -b

    How 'bout CUBA?
    
    It's called prisoner exchange...Castro sends his prisoners to us, we send
    him ours....actually he gets a good deal.... exchange rate is in his
    favor... he gets more criminals from us than we get from him.
    
    Also he knows how to treat criminals better than we do....haven't heard
    of too many tv sets in his jails!
    
    One caviat, however, he can never send one of ours back to the states.
    If one shows up they are subject to immediate execution.
    
    jb

    
    nnttm

    send 'em to the suburbs, any suburb will do.

 Why not just make the state of Delaware a prison?  Put big walls around
 the borders, and they can do what they want.  Who ever goes to Delaware
 anyway?

Mikey goes there in the summertime, Jim.

Didn't Australia start out like the proposal in .0?

 Oh...well, nevermind ;-)




 What is there in Delaware, anyway?

oi!  We don't want 'em either.  

Nivenize 'em.

grrrrr.



\C

    WANT 'em?
    
             Bucko, you **ARE** them.
    
    Hate to remind you of your forebears' 'umble originz but thereittiz.
    
    |-{:-)
    

Sorry to disappoint you, but my forbears have only been here for 3 or 4 
generations.  And despite my ancestry, I can speak neither Gaelic nor German.


I was under the impression that the American colonies were "convicted"?



\C

    
    
    Lookit, Muppet man.  Deleware's got Dupont, and some nice beach areas,
    and Dupont, and some nice rural sections, did I mention Dupont?
    
    
    Mike

There's a really nice rest area on Route 13 in Delaware.  The bathrooms are
luxury-hotel quality.

You can also get a bargain on 50-lb bags of potatoes from trucks parked on
the shoulder.

 Well then, I take back every negative thing I've ever said about Delaware..


 Is Dupont there?

Like, every company in the world is incorporated there (so it seems).
I'd guess that most of them aren't physically there, though.

However, I digress from the original intent of this topic! What's
right and wrong with the idea, leaving out all of the liberal
clap-trap having to do with prisoners' 'rights'. Mind you, we're
talking convicted violent offenders.

Pete

    
    I would make sure to sterilize each "resident" before sending them
    there... (Wherever you choose 'there' to be)

    You mean place them in a hot oven for a few minutes?

    Alabama's got the right idea: chain gangs, a la Cool Hand Luke.
    The highways would be clean again, and unruly kids would have
    something to think about.
    
    Q: Mommy, who are those men in striped pants and what are they doing?
    A: They're in prison for being bad.  And that's what'll happen to you
       if you don't do what Daddy and I say.
    

But chain gangs cost money (as well as return something to society,
but not equal to what they cost us). The net should be zero or close
to it.

And now we need two islands to keep 'em from procreating.

    And besides,
    
    the work being done in Alabama, is done in other states as community
    service for non-violent offenders.  
    
    Meg, used to orange jumpsuits on the highways of CO.

    Well, I dunno, I'd be more worried about them having babies.

    
    If the goal is a "net zero"... how do you initially accomplish this?
    
    A wall cost money... 
    
    Transportation cost money....
    
    Making sure there are no escapes costs money...
    
    
    Etc..  etc... costs money
    
    >And now we need two islands to keep 'em from procreating.
    
    Why two islands??? What part of the word "sterilize" didn't you
    understand??
    

    The point of chain gangs is to suggest to the inmates that being inside
    isn't as much fun as being outside.  With three squares a day, teevee,
    Nautilus, a library, and pretty much everything else they want, even
    including the legal right to demand better stuff for free, why should
    they want to WORK for a living?  Gangs mean they have to work inside,
    too, and it's not as nice as the work outside.

>                                         With three squares a day, teevee,
>    Nautilus, a library, and pretty much everything else they want, even
>    including the legal right to demand better stuff for free, why should
>    they want to WORK for a living?

So prison rape isn't the problem it's advertised as being? 

I know it'll cost money. I admit to exaggerating by using 'zero', but
you get the idea.

Maybe the permanency of sterilization is deserved by a killer or such
doer of non-reparable damage, but I don't feel comfortable with it in
the case of someone who can potentially 'pay their debt' and return to
society.

    
    re: .44
    
    I think you'd better tighten your scenario...
    
    Any "resident" of such a place would, IMO, never be suited to returning
    to society...
    
    They would be more interested in "payback" rather than "paying their
    debt"...
    

    .43
    
    Oh, didn't you know, Gerald, they all turn into flamers, so they
    actually enjoy getting buggered.

.0> all convicted violent criminals

This is what capital punishment is all about folks. No other solutions
are required.

Only muderers are (sometimes) executed. I suspect they are not the
majority of violent offenders. Whaddya do with the batterers, rapists,
etc.?

You haven't been paying much attention. I have, in this forum, suggested the
extension of the death penalty to all violent criminals.

You must have missed the barroom brawlers episode of SOAPBOX.

    On a rerun of Star Trek last night, they visited this beautiful world
    that had no violence, only tranquility and happy people.  Maybe we
    could set up a system of laws like they have.
    
    Of course, the death penalty was the only punishment for any crime. 
    8^)  Poor Westley found out the hard way that when they say "don't walk on 
    the grass" (or trashing a flower bed), they absolutely mean that you
    should not do that.  8^)
    
    As someone who has had their car trashed twice (expensive sound system  
    stolen out of it twice), I can attest that the 'death penalty' came to
    mind once or twice for the cretins who trashed (and stole) my property.
    8^) (x1/2)  It is a most heinous violation, as anyone who has
    experienced this can attest.
    
    I think if we altered the laws of this ST world by only executing those
    who intentionally break common law (excluding stupid things like
    breaking the speed limit and such, which should only be a fine), we may
    be on to something.  8^)  
    
    While some may consider this rather harsh (as do I), think about how
    coddling criminals has benefited this nation as a whole.  Perhaps a
    radical swing of some sort is necessary to stop crime- especially
    violent crime, which is our primary concern.
    
    
    -steve

    Yeah, what if a guy was just having a bad day? He wakes up the morning
    after his wife left him. It's freezing rain and his scraper breaks. He
    gets a flat tire, then discovers his AAA card has expired and has to
    pay for towing because he didn't have a spare. He gets to work to find
    the doors locked, the company has gone bankrupt and it's unlikely he
    will get paid the wages owed to him. He decides to go to a bar and
    drink it all off, but on the way a bailiff serves him his divorce
    papers. Then a truck drives by and splashes slushy water all over him.
    He finally gets to the bar, after about an hour or so, the shift change
    happens and he has to pay his tab. The credit card is declined. The guy
    next to him says `what a loser'. Then man explodes in a fit of rage and
    punches the guy. A real humdinger of a bar fight ensues. The cops come
    and throw him in jail cause he started the fight. 

    Now he must be executed?

Sounds like he's better off dead anyway, no?

    Yes.  Next!

    re: .52
    
    What gives him the right to hit the man at the bar?  By your implied
    reasoning, I should be able to beat someone up because I'm having a bad
    day and they said the wrong thing at the wrong time.  In fact, I could
    probably get away with murder with enough extenuating circumstance- or
    by our current laws, get off with a hand-slap.
    
    We are responsible for our own actions.  The sooner this gets drilled
    into the minds of the general public, the better.
    
    
    -steve

    So, you think this guy deserves to die for punching the other
    insensitive brute?
    
    I suppose hockey players will have to be executed too?

	Glenn, Glenn, Glenn.....everyone knows that Basketball is the most
violent sport right now! :-)

	Btw, if you take your scenerio, put some music to it, that would be a
top seller in the C&W markets!


Glen

    re: .56
    
    I didn't say anything about what he deserves.

    I thought we were discussing executing all violent offenders.
    
    People have tempers.

I admit to not having read every topic and reply in this conference,
and I include that offense with all of the others (all except murder
and habitual (tbd) violence) that should not be punished by death.

Seriously, does it cost $40,000 a year to keep someone in the can, and
what can we reasonably propose to reduce that figure as much as
possible?

Pete

    
    Just having a temper does not give one free rein to beat the snot out
    of someone else.
    
    

Nobody's saying the angry guy has a right to beat up the other guy.  Some
people are questioning the state's right to execute him for it.

    No it doesn't but it happens. Let's face it, some people have short
    fuses. So, in Jack's world, instead of assault charges and a fine, this
    man would be executed. The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

    	I truly doubt that Jack's thesis calls for a barroom brawler to
    	be executed.  Others' manipulation of his argument call for such
    	an event though.

    So, what is a voilent offender?

>    	I truly doubt that Jack's thesis calls for a barroom brawler to
>    	be executed.

Actually, it does, Joe.

I refer the interested reader to discussions I held with Mr. Maiewski
on the matter around 44.240 and following, and 37.317 and following
this past march. That was my opinion then. It is still my opinion now.
The only way to rid society of the antisocial behavior of the criminally
violent is to rid society of the criminally violent, permanently, and at
as little cost as possible. Throwing a barroom brawler in the can for 30
days every time he slugs somebody in the nose doesn't cure him of his
nasty habits. Old Sparky, on the other hand, will. Quite effectively,
too, I might add.

And if you think that the 30-day treatment is more humane, perhaps you'll
want to step to the front of the line to have your clock cleaned by this
airhole next time they let him out.

         <<< Note 578.66 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>And if you think that the 30-day treatment is more humane, perhaps you'll
>want to step to the front of the line to have your clock cleaned by this
>airhole next time they let him out.

	But Jack, you are talking about a chronic brawler instead of
    	the lose-his-temper-once case (which others are using to
    	indict your position.)
    
    	In my previous reply I was going to add a line expressing
    	the ability to support capital punishment in the chronic
    	case, but I thought that would muddle things.  Perhaps I
    	should have done so for clarification.
    
    	And hey, what if I *AM* next in line and happen to be the guy
    	that finally makes Bad, Bad Leroy Brown "look like a jigsaw 
    	puzzle with a couple of pieces gone"?  :^)

    
    
    Let's bring back the stockades......

You mean stocks?

    Yeah! Stocks and bondage.

Maybe I'll become a middleman in the stocks business -- a stocks broker.

    They're of no use if they're broke.

With a limited amount of gritting my teeth, I might be convinced that a
first offence for punching someone in the nose in an unprovoked brawl
is cause for a lesser punishment.

The problem I forsee, thanks to our glorious judicial system, is that
consequent offences will be argued to be as immaterial as the first. (Oh,
yeah - that's right - that _IS_ the way it currently works.)

Hence my contention.

    Why not force them to wear a dunce cap or something for the first
    offense.

Make them wear baseball caps backwards.

Oh.  They already do.  Nevermind.

    Make them way hilariously baggy pants that slide down all the time!

I've got it.  Make them wear frilly pink underwear and spike heels.

I checked 44.240+ and stick to my opinion that capital punishment is
OK under two circumstances:

a person kills another person except in self-defense, or

a person habitually engages in violent behavior.

I realize that 'habitually' needs to be defined, and I suspect that
I'd favor executing a 2- or 3-time rapist or a 5-time batterer,
something like that, something that clearly says that we're not going
to put up with it any more, period, and is not subject to abusive
interpretation. Is it *that* hard to legislate that?

Pete

    So if you work as a cook at an English style pub, would that make you a
    repeat batterer?

re: .78
    
    
>I realize that 'habitually' needs to be defined, and I suspect that
>I'd favor executing a 2- or 3-time rapist or a 5-time batterer,
>something like that, something that clearly says that we're not going
>to put up with it any more, period, and is not subject to abusive
>interpretation. Is it *that* hard to legislate that?

>Pete
    
    
      Excuse me????  What if your daughter was in the middle of that streak
    of rapes and/or beatings??
    
     A rapist would be wearing a hole in the back of his head after the
    first time. A batterer... well, after the first time, he'd be breaking
    rocks for a long time. If he tried it again, then see example above for
    rapist. Repeat as necessary...
    

I'd probably feed differently if it was my daughter, if I'm to speak
honestly. Perhaps one shot at murder or rape (though still not sure
about that one...), and n for other violent crimes where 1 < n < 8
depending on something.

This is fun, making these decisions, isn't it?! OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

    I'd go for one shot at murder and rape, and 2 for other violent crimes. 
    You wanna whack on someone?  Maybe once you're in a foul mood.  Twice
    and you're habitual.  ZZZZZZZT!

    
    
    I agree, Dick. :')

    
    >You wanna whack on someone?  Maybe once you're in a foul mood.  Twice
    
    	What's the penalty for whacking off someone?
    

    
    Ask Lorena...
    

| <<< Note 578.84 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "Antisocial" >>>


| What's the penalty for whacking off someone?

	a mess

    
    A Big Mac.
    
    -b

    
    	Euuuuwwww.
    

    
                          (__)
                          (##)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     || \ 
                 *  ||W---|| Gak! 
                    ~~    ~~  

    

    
    Have you seen the HardCopy about a Illinois murderer(who killed six
    women) made love in prison?  I don't know who made this video.
    Anyway it tell us how much fun those prisoner have in there.
    
    Yesterdays news here says that average prisoner stay in prison only
    25% of their sentence in LA County because of over crowded jail.
    
    Since there are plenty of desert around here, I suggest we build
    prison tent city in desert to hold them.

.90  If you call what was on that videotape "making love" ...

    
    
    	re: .90 tent city
    
    	There are just such facilities being used now. I have an article on
    one in a past issue of the LEAA Advocate (Law Enforcement Alliance of
    America). Perhaps I'll look for it this evening in my growing "read"
    pile...:)
    
    jim

 Z   Since there are plenty of desert around here, I suggest we build
 Z   prison tent city in desert to hold them.
    
    Jason, I agree with you and have mentioned it before.  However, an even
    better choice would be to lease land in some ghastly country like
    Somalia or some such.  Lease out facilities in these forsaken places
    and hire their citizens to act as guards under the auspices of the US
    military.  This way the burden to the US taxpayer would be practically
    non existent, escape would mean death, and believe me, it would be the
    greatest deterrent for criminals.  Furthermore, we would be rid of
    these malcontents and wouldn't have to suffer these fools any longer.
    
    First however, we must destroy the ACLU.

    What brand of paint have you been sniffing Jack?

    Colin:
    
    Very simple really.  I'm sick and tired of supporting the thugs you
    seem to feel have rights after conviction.  I believe they should be
    removed from society.

  <looks in bottom drawer for triangles>

    You might find that the notion of transporting criminals to, er,
    "underdeveloped" nations has been tried before.

    Yeah, and see what the aborigines had to contend with?

    Yes, but in this case, the prisons would be under the auspices of the
    federal government and the US military.  
    
    Look, I'm sick of the guy who raped and killed little Sally down the
    street getting ANY type of luxury in prison.  

    
    But if they get out and rape little Kwale down behind the grass hut
    it's OK.  Keep your flies on your own dungheap, Jack.

>                     <<< Note 578.100 by SMURF::WALTERS >>>

    
>  Keep your flies on your own dungheap, Jack.

	exactly.

 Z    But if they get out and rape little Kwale down behind the grass hut
 Z       it's OK.  Keep your flies on your own dungheap, Jack.
    
    That's absurd!  First of all, leasing land for prisons would be ideal
    overseas.  We would put the prisons in places where there is no
    civilization for miles...and I mean long distance.  Places where escape
    would mean certain death either by thirst or heat stroke.  
    
    Colin, our officials here in the US are doing a piss poor job
    maintaining our dung heap.  We could learn quite a bit from other
    countries.
    
    -Jack

>               We would put the prisons in places where there is no
>    civilization for miles...and I mean long distance.  Places where escape
>    would mean certain death either by thirst or heat stroke.  

No need to go all the way to Somalia when Canada's close by.

    Or Pueblo, CO.