prisoners voting

[edgray]

Stupidest idea ever.. I will tell you why..

If you make people "work" for the benefits, you are now employing them, hence compensation for work.. This was a hot topic that Unions jumped on here in Canada back in the early 1980s when the last big recession hit..

They were YAH make these people work and we can Unionize them as they will NOW be Government Employees.. That ended that idea real quick..

It's only the "stupidest" idea ever because of the current societal framework around us. But that's how it should be.

If our system was good enough that it didn't require unions, that wouldn't be an issue, would it?

 

[Francis]

It's only the "stupidest" idea ever because of the current societal framework around us. But that's how it should be.

If our system was good enough that it didn't require unions, that wouldn't be an issue, would it?

OK so if people are working for benefit, are they not employed ?

That's the definition of employment................. Unions or No Union ?

Also if you have them working 8 hrs, in prime time, when will they look for work ? You see that's when the people who manage these people work as they themselves are government employees on the dole..

 

[edgray]

OK so if people are working for benefit, are they not employed ?

That's the definition of employment................. Unions or No Union ?

Also if you have them working 8 hrs, in prime time, when will they look for work ? You see that's when the people who manage these people work as they themselves are government employees on the dole..

Ideally there would be no unemployment. The concept shouldn't even exist, if you think about it. It's pretty perverse that it does.

Are they employed? Technically of course, but the contract would be quite different from that of a normal employment situation. There would even be ways to do it that won't raise the backs of the unions up.

Isn't that the whole point of this? To get people to work?

 

[Francis]

Ideally there would be no unemployment. The concept shouldn't even exist, if you think about it. It's pretty perverse that it does.

Are they employed? Technically of course, but the contract would be quite different from that of a normal employment situation. There would even be ways to do it that won't raise the backs of the unions up.

Isn't that the whole point of this? To get people to work?

Ideally there would be no criminals, no unemployment and one computer company called Perfect Computer Co. and one called Perfect Phone Co., but we live in a Human Society that thrives on greed, anger and disagreement.. Ain't going to happen Ed.

 

[edgray]

Ideally there would be no criminals, no unemployment and one computer company called Perfect Computer Co. and one called Perfect Phone Co., but we live in a Human Society that thrives on greed, anger and disagreement.. Ain't going to happen Ed.

if you told workers in 19C England that in the future, they'd be paid to take holidays, and they'd have a contract that gave them rights, they would have said exactly the same.

Don't be fooled by what the status quo tells you about what human society thrives on.

 

[Accountable]

if the vote actually mattered to people, it might be a way to disuade petty criminals from their actions... but really, I don't think the vote is particularly cherished by many these days.

It's not cherished, but it's not worth anything anyway. The real power is in taking the time to track your representatives and tell them how they'd better vote if they want to get reelected. Even then it's a tossup.

 

[Meirionnydd]

Where has this been shown? The results of Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment showed the complete opposite of what you're saying. Aggressive techniques don't lead to return aggression, they lead to surrender.

In a real prison, where the inmates aren't white university students from a middle-class background, the results are quite different. The results from the Stanford Prison experiment cannot be generalized to an actual prison setting. In the experiment, which was intended to test the role of de-individualization on human behavior, resulted in the participants modeling their behavior on existing schema and prototypes of prison guards and prisoners.

Another experiment was conducted in 2003 and broadcast on the BBC, which came to the completely opposite conclusion, the prisoners revolted.

In an actual prison, evidence strongly suggests that any attempts of forced compliance makes the prisoners more aggressive and resistant to authority. Which in turn can lead to the process of criminalization, where inmates create and support a system of beliefs attitudes and feelings which can create a deviant culture that seeks to undermine the authority of those running the prison.

 

[Accountable]

Meirion, knowing you, you tried to find the BBC broadcast to give us a link. Do you remember the name of the program, study, or who did it? I have some resources on this end & might be able to find it. It would be fascinating to look at both studies side-by-side.

 

[Abcinthia]

I know the BBC study (learnt it in Psychology)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mhzFCglnIA

And the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Experiment

 

[Meirionnydd]

Meirion, knowing you, you tried to find the BBC broadcast to give us a link. Do you remember the name of the program, study, or who did it? I have some resources on this end & might be able to find it. It would be fascinating to look at both studies side-by-side.

http://www.bbcprisonstudy.org/index.php

It was featured on television under the program title "The Experiment". In my Social Psychology classes, they showed an excerpt of the video footage from youtube, so you might be able to find something there.

 

[Accountable]

Priceless! Thanks, I'll look it over.

 

[edgray]

In a real prison, where the inmates aren't white university students from a middle-class background, the results are quite different. The results from the Stanford Prison experiment cannot be generalized to an actual prison setting. In the experiment, which was intended to test the role of de-individualization on human behavior, resulted in the participants modeling their behavior on existing schema and prototypes of prison guards and prisoners.

Ok but do you have this study? I'd really like to see it.

Another experiment was conducted in 2003 and broadcast on the BBC, which came to the completely opposite conclusion, the prisoners revolted.

In an actual prison, evidence strongly suggests that any attempts of forced compliance makes the prisoners more aggressive and resistant to authority. Which in turn can lead to the process of criminalization, where inmates create and support a system of beliefs attitudes and feelings which can create a deviant culture that seeks to undermine the authority of those running the prison.

The BBC study has its flaws, see below.

http://www.bbcprisonstudy.org/index.php

It was featured on television under the program title "The Experiment". In my Social Psychology classes, they showed an excerpt of the video footage from youtube, so you might be able to find something there.

Looking into the BBC study now. It's certainly added a lot to the debate, but it's not free from criticism, and some of the criticisms are pretty valid, specifically that the show could just be classed as reality tv, and the fact that they're on camera they're not going to be acting themselves.

Going back to your previous post tho:

Also, having a distinct phase of punishment followed by rehabilitation does not work. Any kind of harsh or unfair treatment in prison will lead to inmates becoming more aggressive and resistive of any later attempts of rehabilitation.

Again, please show me where this has actually been shown.

It would entirely depend on a) the type of punishment and how it's handled b) the prisoner involved c) the length of sentence time d) how the prison is organised... and that's even before you've started the rehabilitation.

 

[Meirionnydd]

Ok but do you have this study? I'd really like to see it.



The BBC study has its flaws, see below.



Looking into the BBC study now. It's certainly added a lot to the debate, but it's not free from criticism, and some of the criticisms are pretty valid, specifically that the show could just be classed as reality tv, and the fact that they're on camera they're not going to be acting themselves.

Going back to your previous post tho:

The Stanfield Prison Experiment is also extremely flawed. If you actually check any of the criticisms, you'll realize that it cannot be, and was never intended to be generalized to a prison setting.

Check the aim of the study. It had NOTHING to do with corrections, or criminology. It was simply an experiment on social influence and de-individualization.

In an actual prison, the prisoners aren't actually middle-class college students. Furthermore, the people selected for the Stanfield Prison Experiment were intended to be psychologically healthy and well-adjusted individuals. Actual prisoners are anything but.

Through years of research, ten types of offenders have been identified on the basis of MMPI profiies. They are (descriptions adapted from Zager, 1988, Sechrest, 1987, and Megargee and Bohn, 1977):

1. well-adjusted individuals who lack conflicts with authorities;
2. well-adjusted underachievers with good interpersonal skills;
3. inadequate individuals who are anxious, constricted, dogmatic, and with a tendency to abuse alcohol;
4. charming individuals who tend to be impulsive, manipulative, and achievement oriented;
5. submissive and anxious individuals who are hardworking and reliable;
6. hedonistic, manipulative individuals who have poor interpersonal relations with peers and staff;
7. individuals from deprived backgrounds who do better in prison as well as on release than expected;
8. individuals with extensive criminal records who are tough, stremise, cynical,
and generally antisocial;
9. individuals with extensive criminal records, polydrug abuse, who are described as hostile, misanthropic, alienated, and antisocial; and
10. individuals characterized as being unstable and emotionally disturbed.

You can see how these different individuals would not react to imprisonment the same as middle class college students.

Also..

Zarnble and Porporino (1988) examined the coping strategies and adjustment characteristics of inmates in Canadian penitentiaries. They found that emotional disruption and adjustment were clearly problems for most inmates during the beginning of their sentences, particularly signs of serious to moderate depression. This deleterious reaction came as no surprise, as prison produces a dramatic disruption in customary behavior, compounded by restrictions, deprivations, and constraints. However, these initial reactions soon dissipated for most inmates, and no lasting emotional disturbance was discernible as the inmate became adjusted to his surroundings and prison routine. Toch and Adams (with Grant, 1989) report a similar pattern in their study on American prisoners. The Toch-Adams data suggest that inmates with emotional problems also tend to be disruptive in prison. Furthermore, their data support the frequent observation that age is a consistent correlate of prison violations, with young inmates being
much more prone to engage in prison misbehavior than older inmates.

Again, please show me where this has actually been shown.

It would entirely depend on a) the type of punishment and how it's handled b) the prisoner involved c) the length of sentence time d) how the prison is organised... and that's even before you've started the rehabilitation.

Here...

Toch and Adams (with Grant, 1989) suggest that the maturation process facilitated by humane prison environments plays a crucial role. The researchers contend that inmate behavior is likely to improve when inmates learn the association between behavior and its positive or negative consequences within the institution, and when they have psychological support, the opportunity to participate in conventional activities, form attachment bonds, and build relationships...

Obviously, if you were in a prison environment which was harsh and demeaning, any subsequent rehabilitation program would have to undo the damage done during the 'punishment' process. In that case, why distinctly punish the prisoner anyway? It harms them psychologically, and makes them less able to be effectively rehabilitated. Plus, like it has been said a million times, prison is the punishment, you don't go to prison to be punished. Deprivation of liberty is a very serious punishment.

EDIT: Because I've got my university exam period going on, this response might seem a bit rushed. Also, the source I'm quoting, from my knowledge, isn't freely available on the internet. It's a document that is required reading from one of my university courses. If you send me a PM, I'll see what I can do in sending a copy to anyone that is interested.

 

[edgray]

An interesting study for sure - I'm PM you my email address if you're inclined to send the whole thing. But from what you've posted here it doesn't seem to refute the idea of separate punishment and rehabilitation. And from what you said:

Obviously, if you were in a prison environment which was harsh and demeaning, any subsequent rehabilitation program would have to undo the damage done during the 'punishment' process.

I would actually argue that trying to rehabilitate someone during punishment simply won't work for the very reason you described. You cannot punish someone and rehabilitate them at the same time. This might well be the reason that prison, as a correctional facility, fails so miserably. As you posted here:

Deprivation of liberty is a very serious punishment.

How could someone receiving "a very serious punishment," at the same time, be rehabilitated for society? We know this doesn't work. Rehabilitation would have to be a process of inclusion, and how could that be achieved in the confines of a prison, locked away from society?

The Stanfield Prison Experiment is also extremely flawed. If you actually check any of the criticisms, you'll realize that it cannot be, and was never intended to be generalized to a prison setting.

Check the aim of the study. It had NOTHING to do with corrections, or criminology. It was simply an experiment on social influence and de-individualization.

In an actual prison, the prisoners aren't actually middle-class college students. Furthermore, the people selected for the Stanfield Prison Experiment were intended to be psychologically healthy and well-adjusted individuals. Actual prisoners are anything but.

Yes, the Stamford Prison Experiment was flawed. Any experiment over time is always replaced by more modern studies and findings. Zimbardo stands by his work though, for good reason. The recent revelation of what happened at Abu Gharib sits very well with his findings amongst a varied base of prisoners in much harsher circumstances and wildly differing conditions.

As for having nothing to do with corrections or criminology, given the framework of prisoners and prison guards, it's clear that it was an experiment on social influence in a prison environment. It wasn't criminology by any stretch of the imagination tho.

The reason candidates for the Stamford Experiment were screened to be healthy, well adjusted individuals was to show the extremities in the effects of incarceration. And it did just that.

--------

I'm sure we can both agree that the correctional system, as it stands, needs changing simply because we know it's not working. It's not working as a deterrent, and it's not working as a rehabilitation process.

From that, we can look at the options that could possibly made to improve the situation.

And going back to the topic, I believe that a rehabilitation would have to be a process of inclusion, which would lend itself to giving the prisoners the right to vote.

Good luck in your exams.