EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 76,919
- 53,055
- 2,645
You know nothing about prisons or prisoners. Prisoners get benefits so the guards can have something to take away when they misbehave. It is to make sure there is some form of means of forcible compliance. The lives of prisoners are pretty much worthless.Not sure what your criticism is...but there is a certain reality here that has nothing to do with “emotion”. Prisons are violent places, for a variety of reasons. People complain about stuff like how come we give them television. Outlets, like the ability to exercise, Watch tv, get educated, provide a safety release for what might otherwise become violence and that is dangerous not just for fellow prisoners but those who work there.You did better answering me. This time you are very close to emotional concerns of how much it sucks to be there. As I first stated before you used Coyote logic, they chose poorly and so it sucks to be where they are. Or is this how you respond figuring you got irosie's number? Playing shoot the ducks tonight?You know me, independent hard ass, so you will not be surprised that I do not favor priority for the incarcerated. People of all races and creeds should prioritize behavior that will not get them incarcerated. If you choose the quick way up the mountain and fall, making subject to injury or death, while laying there, hard to imagine not thinking "maybe should have chosen to stay on the safer trail up that hill". Choices suck when you make the wrong one. Just saying,...It actually makes a lot of sense considering the atmosphere of correctional facilities where social distancing between officers and inmates isn't possiblewhat a stupid thing to say
Not all choices deserve the death penalty though. When you incarcerate someone (and frankly far more end up icarcerated than should be because it is an industry), you assume a responsibility for their basic needs since you have removed the opportunity for them to do so. On a more practical stand point, in a close confined situation like that it can be very expensive to treat those that become sick and impossible to isolate them, and protective gear is often not provided. IMO, any large group facility that can not accommodate basic preventative measures or contains a particularly vulnerable population should be prioritized.
seems to me that you have not been INSIDE a whole lot of prisons. Perhaps you have an image of USA prisons as something like Medieval DUNGEONS with
scores of people chained up inside small dark places--or CHAIN GANGS. -----it ain't so. -----their are small---INDIVIDUAL cells----with usually two---or even one person per cell-----and a sink and a toilet
We have a federal cluster of prisons five miles from me. They are not small facilities. The high security penitentiary holds 2003. As you point out cells are small. Unless you keep everyone segregated In lockdown, and have a good ventilation system...how will you keep an airborn infectious disease from spreading? So far, prisons have not been successful.
keep them in the cells MOST of the time. Impose
sanitary rules of the same type people LIVING in families observe-----"EVERYBODY IN LOCK DOWN"----is that what people living in an apartment with ten others do? There is no need-----the only people who need to be locked down in INDIVIDUAL cells are those who are either sick or newly positive----for a while---ie a quarantine period. A very similar issue exists in the military. Somehow---my very own son SURVIVED living in a submarine with less space between sailors than there is between prisoners ----uhm ---my father survived a small ship in the North Atlantic for
many months I survived a small house with four brothers. Good ventilation is nice and not hard to do---in fact the prisons probably already have it. I survived working in hospitals----even during outbreaks of TORCH sicknesses during my own pregnancy. In jails----just make sure that the boys and the girls are segregated-----very difficult in the military and try to
get the shivs and shanks out of the hands of the poor innocent criminals
...what happens if you keep people in close confinement, with little to do, no activity to burn off emotions, little social contact ... add to that lots of pent up violence, poor impulse control, way too much testosterone...and panic over a virus.
All the situati9 s that you describe have an element of choice and control that prisoners don’t have.
If you are proposing solitary confinement to ride out the virus, then that frankly, is torture. Poor choices run the gamut from simple drug possession to mass murder. That means they need to serve a sentence. It doesn’t mean their lives are any less than another’s, it means they have lost their freedom and must pay restitution.
From a practical standpoint it makes sense to vaccinate prisoners. There are frequent movements of people in and out all the time and a base population that is closely confined.
I have long been a proponent of using prisoners for medical experimentation. We did that in the past. There was no reason to stop.
