That prisons are outfitted with weight rooms for convicts to bulk up is one thing, but even the basketball courts & such that keep the body athletic seems counterproductive to control for one thing- parolees & escapees have easier access to thier aggression than thier more contemplative capacity..
Yoga, maybe... but calisthenics & such?
Maybe reduce prison time for compliance....
Of course segregate the "buff" from the "no-longer-buff"...
Workable? No?
2007-11-09 01:26:28 · 8 answers · asked by morkmath 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
SC removed all weight lifting equipment years ago , however you have to allow them to walk or something , keeping an inmate healthy reduces the amount of tax dollars spent on their health care , after all the State is responsible for those placed in it's custody. why not just do a more harsh 3 strike law , such as after the 3rd strike mandatory death penalty , and do away with the 5 , 10 and 15 year waiting period , open an express lane ....or better yet , we could make the family of the convicted pay for the jail time , besides , most criminals are a direct result of poor upbringing , mom and dad failed , and we pay , that is not right ....is it ?
2007-11-09 02:05:44 · answer #1 · answered by Insensitively Honest 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your pholosphy was tried by the reformers in the 18th and 19th century. Eastern state penatentary founded in 1829 is the most famous example. Inmates were not allowed to communicate or make noise in any way. they sat in their cell for 24hrs a day 7 days a week in complete silence. they went insane. In this day and time such a punishment would never be allowed on constitutioal grounds due to The 8th amendment of the constitution which is applicable to the states vi the Supreme court decision (Robinson v. California 370 U.S. 660). Justice Brennan in 1972 stated there are four guidline to determine if a puishment is crual or unusual. These conditions are: "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary
What your wanting would clearly violate both condition 1 and condition two. Stepping away from the legal basis of why you could not do it look at the practical. These individuals that you are treating in such a crual manner are going to be released one day. Imagine the anger that a person treated in such a manner would have toward the society that treated them so harshly! They would be far more dangerious when released that when first incarcerated. No the best approach is to allow them to interact and form persoal bonds, some for the first time in their lives. That will possibly allow them to realize that they have a duty to work within society and not against it.
2007-11-09 09:55:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
All the theory's have the same fatal flaw: the vast,vast majority of inmates are not criminals; they are just alcoholics and drug addicts. They are easy to bust, half the time they don't remember if they did the crime or not, and a young cop on the way up can rack up an impressive arrest record, and most can't afford a real lawyer. A major problem is there's usually plenty of dope in prison. As far as segregation goes, they segregate themselves. The have to.
2007-11-09 10:32:46 · answer #3 · answered by Bob H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know a skinny kid who went to prison for distribution and came back a skinny kid who committed an armed robbery and blew someone's head off. Weights don't make em a more violent person, it is the prison that does that. Almost every person who I know who went to prison comes back WORSE!
PRISONS DON'T WORK. The system don't care though. As long as the connected Irish and Italians have good jobs, the system don't care about the rest of society. And you can throw connected hillbillies in with the Irish and Italians if you are from down South.
2007-11-09 10:12:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uhh, no. I don't think they should have weights, but forcing people to sit and not move for hours on end for years at a time is definitely cruel and unusual. But if anything, the excercise makes people less aggressive, not more.
2007-11-09 12:54:04 · answer #5 · answered by Scott B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They should be allowed to exercise - and I think it's mandated that they be allowed to- but they need to take away the weigh benches and not let them get all pumped up for a prison riot. There's exercise and then there's preparing for war....
2007-11-09 10:56:43 · answer #6 · answered by Sandy Sandals 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are thinking in the wrong direction. Give them more work to do and harder work if that don't work. They should be paid for the work though. No not a lot but something.
2007-11-09 10:26:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
a person's physique has very little, if not nothing to do, with their tendancy to be violent and aggressive.
a small skinny person can weild a gun or knife just as easily..
2007-11-09 09:31:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋