Abolish prisons, says Angela Davis

Ladewig said:
You seem to have glossed over the passing of a Constitutional amendment repealing the last half of the 8th amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
I fail to see how being put in a Soviet style Gulag could be an more cruel and unusual then doing hard time in an American prison. The Gulags were actually labor camps and not prisons. By allowing access by journalists and human rights activists conditions at the Gulags could be kept humane.
Also, if one is to follow the Bill of Rights and allow convicts access to the civil and criminal court systems, then transporting them back to the U.S. for every court appearance could be rather costly.
What court appearances? Once a person is convicted, they seldom have need to reappear in court. If further contact is need with the American legal system, then video conferencing can be set up.
Given the number of people who have been falsely convicted of felonies and crimes incorrectly classified as felonies, death would be a rather inappropriate sentence.
I was thinking more along the lines of a person that is doing life in prison and kills an inmate or guard. Or escapes from prison and commits a lesser felony such as kidnaping or aggravate rape. What needs to be done is to clarify which crimes should apply to the three strikes and your out law and which crimes should not.
 
Outcast said:
reasonable doubt is a legal term. It dose allow for some doubt in a person's mind as to the guilt or innocence of a person. For example Timothy McVeigh was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. "Shadow of a doubt" is a common usage term and not a legal term.

I'm aware of this. I'm asking you to propose an example for more specific discussion...
 
gnome said:


I'm aware of this. I'm asking you to propose an example for more specific discussion...

Possibly...

Reasonable doubt: All logic, motive and evidence points to you killing the person but no one actually witnessed the crime.

Shadow of a doubt: You're caught killing the person...either in public, by several police officers or on videotape.
 
I fail to see how being put in a Soviet style Gulag could be an more cruel and unusual then doing hard time in an American prison. The Gulags were actually labor camps and not prisons.

Serving time in a area where temperatures can reach 40° below zero is without a doubt unusual and could easily be argued as cruel. I would describe not allowing family to visit the prisoners as c&u.

By allowing access by journalists and human rights activists conditions at the Gulags could be kept humane.

In Texas there are prisons that do not always grant access to journalists and human rights activists. Ensuring that access halfway around the world may be overly optimistic.

What court appearances? Once a person is convicted, they seldom have need to reappear in court. If further contact is need with the American legal system, then video conferencing can be set up.

Prisoners can appear in court as witnesses in other crimes, as plantiffs or defendants in civil cases, and as suspects in other crimes. I'm not convinced that videoconferencing is fair and just in all these situations. If I were a lawyer, then I might distrust the government to provide a secure videoconference line for me to talk to my clients.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Well, this is a sweet idea. Except, when I was driving for a state contractor here in CA, I actually had to spend some time running trucks into and out of California's prison system.

Perhaps if Ms. Davis had ever spent some time with some of those model human beings we have incarcerated in our prisons, she might think twice about releasing them into the general population. People like rapists, murderers, thieves, and the like.

Truth to tell, I find it odd that she would suggest that these people be turned loose, but then, Davis makes enough from her salary as a tenured professor, not to mention speaker's fees, that she probably believes she'd never have to live next door to any of them. Not too many of these guys live in her neighborhood. Most of them would move into lower income areas like mine, like North Highlands. It's an area where we have a very small police presence. (Hey, in areas where you don't have big money, the cops aren't really willing to go. No political power around here.)

I remember well lockdowns, the constant threat of violence, having to lock the doors to my truck as I drove in and out, having to ride with a guard in the buddy seat, not being allowed to even carry a 9/16ths wrench so I could readjust my brakes, because if these people got their hands on it, SOMEONE MIGHT DIE. Most of these people are violent to begin with, regardless of the reason behind it. You put them in with other violent people, and yes, they do become more violent. There is a constant threat once you lock people up.

But, I would also hasten to add, that among those prisons Ms. Davis cites, there are honor camps, there are minimum security facilities, and there are also other options open to our courts, such as house arrest. Violence is lower in most of those facilities, and in some, it's almost non-existent. (Not all. Keep in mind, we've got a serious problem here with the California Youth Authority.)

A significant problem we're having with our prisons has more to do with corruption among our prison guards, and within the penal system within this state. However, you sure as hell don't want to turn these guys loose, claiming that just because they're locked up, that's creating the problem. It ain't so, kids. And many of these guys wind up back behind bars, not because the system is out to get them, but as one woman working for the Prison Industries Authority told me, they're "stuck on stupid." Many of the guys I've seen leaving the prison actually have some skills. There's companies out there that will give them a chance, if they'll just put some effort into getting straight.

For whatever reason, they choose not to. They decide they'll take the easy route, and back they go to Folsom, to Corcoran, to Pelican Bay. They don't have to do this to themselves.

I've got friends where I work who have felony convictions, and yet, they've taken the time to turn their lives around. These are good people, and I've welcomed them into my home without a concern. Life is made up of choices. They chose to make something of themselves.
 
Roadtoad, you rock - how would you like to adopt me? We could get married but we might have trouble finding a state willing to do it!




(just thought I'd metnion that . . . ahem . . . carry on . . . nothing to see here . . . ahem . . . how about them bears, eh?)
 
Graham said:
Roadtoad, you rock - how would you like to adopt me? We could get married but we might have trouble finding a state willing to do it!




(just thought I'd metnion that . . . ahem . . . carry on . . . nothing to see here . . . ahem . . . how about them bears, eh?)

I think the lovely and gracious Peggy would object.
 
Roadtoad said:


I think the lovely and gracious Peggy would object.

Probably the loving and gracious Toni too!

I gues our love will just have to remain distant an unfulfilled then :D

You could help me out with something though. I'm writing (or trying to write) a short story about someone travelling across America in a camper van.

If you wanted to contact the police on a CB, what frequency/channel would you tune to?

Graham
 
gnome said:


I'm aware of this. I'm asking you to propose an example for more specific discussion...
Ok look at Timothy McVeigh, there are people out there that feel he is not guilty. One of the reasons he was so quickly executed was part of the government cover up. McVeigh was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a reasonable doubt that he was not guilty. McVeigh, in my opinion should never gotten the death penalty. I am not sure why the judge allowed the victims of the federal building to testify in court prior to Mcveigh being found guilty. They had no prior knowledge of the crime to add to the trial

Someone like Deanna Laney, who killed her two children with a rock, should have gotten the death penalty the next day. There is no doubt any anyone mind that she did it, even though there was no video tape or witness. The only question was sanity.
 
Graham said:


Probably the loving and gracious Toni too!

I gues our love will just have to remain distant an unfulfilled then :D

You could help me out with something though. I'm writing (or trying to write) a short story about someone travelling across America in a camper van.

If you wanted to contact the police on a CB, what frequency/channel would you tune to?

Graham

Channel 9 in most of the US. Most police monitor that channel, as well as EMS.

Funny story I remember hearing from a buddy of mine who was on a cross country run. I'll have to tell it later, though.
 
Roadtoad said:


Channel 9 in most of the US. Most police monitor that channel, as well as EMS.

Funny story I remember hearing from a buddy of mine who was on a cross country run. I'll have to tell it later, though.

Thanks for that :)
 
Outcast said:
Ok look at Timothy McVeigh, there are people out there that feel he is not guilty. One of the reasons he was so quickly executed was part of the government cover up. McVeigh was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a reasonable doubt that he was not guilty. McVeigh, in my opinion should never gotten the death penalty. I am not sure why the judge allowed the victims of the federal building to testify in court prior to Mcveigh being found guilty. They had no prior knowledge of the crime to add to the trial

Someone like Deanna Laney, who killed her two children with a rock, should have gotten the death penalty the next day. There is no doubt any anyone mind that she did it, even though there was no video tape or witness. The only question was sanity.

Ok... then here's my question... in whom would the power to declare guilt "beyond shadow of a doubt" be vested, in order to move justice rapidly? The police officers arresting her? If you're going to use the court system... are you proposing bumping every other case pending at the time to make way for handling this one right away? That would require SOMEONE decide that this one deserves the fast-track. Who gets that power? How quickly can "beyond a shadow of a doubt" be established?

Are we to trust that the power not to be abused, just because as far as we can tell from watching TV, the person is definitely guilty?

Can you get any shortcuts on justice because something LOOKS like a slam-dunk?
 
Huzington said:


Hm... let me think! This is a really tough one... uhm....how about...
let's see...REHABILITATION! :rolleyes:

"Well, you just killed 3 people for crack money, you've been through and failed several detox programs, you have been given job-training, (you've been to 1 out of 5 interviews), the job you did get you were fired from for not showing up...so how's rehabilitation working for you?"

"Great, just great. Stick 'em up."

Rehabilitation works only if the parasite wants to change.
 
Outcast said:
Ok look at Timothy McVeigh, there are people out there that feel he is not guilty. One of the reasons he was so quickly executed was part of the government cover up. McVeigh was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a reasonable doubt that he was not guilty. McVeigh, in my opinion should never gotten the death penalty. I am not sure why the judge allowed the victims of the federal building to testify in court prior to Mcveigh being found guilty. They had no prior knowledge of the crime to add to the trial

*snip*

What are you talking about?

From what I know about the McVeigh case (taken from TIME and Newsweek magazines), the guy confessed to the crime, said he was proud of it, and insisted in being executed. Where the **** is the reasonable doubt you are talking about?
 
Huzington said:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Avakian on the Question of Stalin and "Stalinism"
[modu]This post has been reported for copyright violation. I wil remove the full body of the article. If Huzington wishes to provide a source link, I will add it to his post. In the mean time, those who wish to see the article can PM me and I will PM it back.[/modu]
 
Upchurch said:

[modu]This post has been reported for copyright violation. I wil remove the full body of the article. If Huzington wishes to provide a source link, I will add it to his post. In the mean time, those who wish to see the article can PM me and I will PM it back.[/modu]

So, Bob Avakian -- avowed Marxist -- is going to challenge this post because he will feel that his copyright has been violated? ;)
 

Back
Top Bottom