I’m going to try again to state my positions in a way that hopefully will be clearer. My positions have not changed, so if you read this and get a different idea about my positions, you probably didn’t understand my first post.
Now, in reality, my position is not segmentable; each part of what I believe cannot be separated from the other parts and still be effective or, in some cases, reasonable. If you read my position, then break it up into pieces to be examined separately – that is, each piece examined as though the others did not exist – you will certainly find that several parts don’t seem reasonable. So please, please, try to envision the entire thing at once, working together.
I’ll try to begin at the beginning.
“As I stated, I agree that there is a problem with the system, with the way that people are convicted and sentenced, and actually with the entire judicial branch. The issue of “rehabilitation” is a complex one without a clear or universal solution at this time – but it is one that I believe personally is the responsibility of the courts, not the prisons, to determine. In my opinion, if the court determines that someone may be rehabilitated and become a productive member of society, that court has no business sending that person to prison, but instead should put them forcibly if necessary into an appropriate rehabilitation program. Those sent to prisons should be those who have no clear chance for rehabilitation.”
I thought this was clear from this statement, especially regarding the last sentence that, according to my opinions and beliefs, the only people who should ever be sent to prisons are those who have NO clear chance for rehabilitation. None. People who, when evaluated by a competent system (ie: not the current one) in light of effective methods for turning criminals permanently into productive members of society, are determined to have no clear opportunity for reform.
These are the only people who belong in prisons, in my opinion. Again, I thought this was clear from what I said. And I will say it again another way:
Under the system I am describing, the only people in the prisons would be the people who could not reasonably be expected re-enter society without continuing their criminal activities. This is taking into account every reasonable (or forcible) system that could be attempted to be used to prevent their continued criminal activities. I would even expect the rehabilitation systems to be the primary, most-used options, but under the assumption that anyone who had exhausted every rehabilitation option and still presented a threat to society would be, in the end, moved into the prison system.
Is this part of it clear? That the people who are going to the prison system have been determined by society to have no real right to return to society?
Okay, let’s cover one of the more controvercial statements I made:
“Incarceration does imply mistreatment. In my opinion, convicted criminals do not deserve medical or mental health treatment except where non-treatment would risk the lives of the guards or outside citizens or otherwise disproportionately increase the long-term costs of imprisonment. In my opinion, from the day they are convicted until they day they are released, prisoners are neither “people” nor should they be considered to be “human”, and making it to the end of their sentence alive and in good health should not be considered a guarantee nor a right.”
Now, since the only people who are entering the prison system are the people for whom it is determined by a competent and effective rehabilitation system that it would be unreasonable for them to be allowed to re-enter society, it seems very reasonable to me that those people who should not be allowed to re-enter society do not need protections and assistance designed to get them healthfully through their sentence and back into society.
Is that not clear? Not reasonable?
If you’re worried about the “wrongly convicted”, remember when I said “… there are major problems with the entire judicial branch, and the process by which people become convicted and sentenced needs to be torn down and rethought from scratch.”?
Yeah. I don’t have a completed system in mind for an entirely new and effective judicial system, but the current system is not it. If lawyers were allowed to continue to exist, they would not be permitted to withold information or lie, and in the case of criminals found innocent lawyers should be held accountable for future crimes committed by those they have represented to that end.
The judicial system should not be about “winning” and “losing” by “any means necessary”, but about all parties working together to discover the truth and interpret it with regards to the laws that apply and the intentions of the parties involved and the possibility of preventing future violations, as well as (in cases involving clear victims) potentially making reasonable reparations to victims.
Is that clear? The judicial system should be used to determine the ACTUAL guilt or innocence of accused parties. Reparations for victims should be reasonable, and based on actual verifiable needs created by verifiable crimes and not otherwise already repaired/fulfilled by private entities/charities/et cetera.
I have to go for right now, but I think I’ve re-stated some key points clearly.
As far as voting for Arpaio goes, I don’t think I’ve covered that here, but I’ll try to make some time for that later.