home

Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits

By Jeralyn, Section Inmates and Prisons
Posted on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:32:43 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

We've gotten accustomed to legislators introducing bills that increase the number and length of mandatory sentences, eliminate well- established defendants' rights and establish procedures designed to ensure convictions. This year, California takes it one step further with a bill to eliminate conjugal visits.

Here's a letter to the editor that defense attorney Jeff Friedman of Santa Ana, CA wrote that probably won't get published:

Dear Editor:

In the haste of some legislators to inflict additional suffering upon our state prisoners, they apparently fail to heed the probable consequences of their mean-spiritedness.

The latest example is AB 212 by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine) which would end conjugal visists for "violent" felons. May I ask Assemblyman DeVore to identify so much as one salutary purpose for such a bill?

The only apparent objective of this piece of legislation and others like it is to inflict more and more misery upon those who are already spending decades, if not the rest of their lives, in the deplorable conditions of our state prison system.

But, ignoring for a moment the obvious lack of potential postive impact of this measure, let's briefly focus upon its probable consequences.

Many criminals smoke cigarettes. Cigarettes are now banned in our state penitentiaries. So these people are deprived of one of the few pleasures which they used to be allowed. They can't use the telephone. Prison food is inexcrable. Every trip to the shower is a potential death march. And many, if not most, of these inmates have no realistic possibility of ever being paroled to look forward to.

Now, you eliminate the one remaining privilege which can make their lives minimally bearable on the rare occasion that it is allowed. You send the message that their natural sexual urges cannot find an outlet with their partners.

Tell me, what do you think is going to happen?

Assemblyman DeVore might just want to take a moment and contemplate the daily existence of a slightly built, non-violent inmate who finds himself housed in a two man cell with one of these "violent" felons who is consumed by frustration and rage. Sounds like fun, doesn't it?

California already has the most draconian sentencing scheme in the entire nation in terms of the length of sentences handed out. Now, our legislators want to ensure that evcry waking moment of these decades is spent in abject misery and despair.

Can't our state lawmakers find some other way of getting votes than to constantly use the limits of their imagination to divine more and more ways of inflicting torture upon human beings who have already been removed from society and thus no longer pose a threat to any of us?

Jeffrey H. Friedman
Attorney at Law

< No Toxicology Tests for Hunter | Colo. Governor Owens: More to Say on Ward Churchill >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits | 48 comments (48 topical)
    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:38:15 AM EST
    The two preceding comments astonish me in their mean-spiritedness.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:48:25 AM EST
    And are we expected to support his offfsprings since he can't?
    if he is the low life scum you assume him to be, your probably already providing for his offsping. remarks absent common sense and/or logic are; well, trolling. oh, but of cousre that was your intent!!!
    GOOD!! Prisoners don't deserve it anyway!!
    do you have a list of what an incarcerated human might deserve. or would the standard f@@k'em and feed'em fish heads work for you. moral values mandate my a$$.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:56:46 AM EST
    Maybe if ex-felons had the right to vote, there wouldn't be such a national obsession with "getting tough on crime".

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 11:05:22 AM EST
    ...and always keep in mind that roughly half of these criminals are in prison for non-violent, consensual vice crimes: partiularly drug possession. Even you posters who might feel justified that prison life is supposed to be torture for punishment for violent crimes have a tough time convincing me that someone who made some politically incorrect choice about intoxicants deserves to suffer rape and torture.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 11:27:14 AM EST
    The bill only ban it for VIOLENT criminals. I am 100% for getting as tough as possible on these scums. They are not there for vacation, they are in prison because they have hurt other people. I think anyone who advocate cuddling VIOLENT criminals is a weasel who do it for political gains or misguided. I am all for having a better court system to make sure we lock up the RIGHT criminals. But once someone's guilt is determined beyond a reasonable doubt, he or she should be punished as harshly as possible. And the good news is that the public as well as the government (at least in CA where I live) seems to be agreeing with me.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 11:31:07 AM EST
    A sexually satisfied inmate is a better behaved inmate. I'd bet prison guards would be against this ban as well. IMHO, I would prefer rehabilitation to revenge or punishment. Remember "law and order" types, one day these inmates will be released, do you want them rehabed or angry at the world? Think about it.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 11:46:32 AM EST
    "IMHO, I would prefer rehabilitation to revenge or punishment. Remember "law and order" types, one day these inmates will be released, do you want them rehabed or angry at the world? Think about it." That's why we have 3 strikes laws. We can put them in prison forever. I would prefer them not to be released at all. In fact, 3 strikes is too much. It will be better if we lower it down to 2 strikes. I would much prefer to spend my tax dollars on educating decent normal people instead of rehabing violent criminals. They should all be sent to an island and have the pleasure of keeping each other company. I guess prison is the second best option. And before anyone jump on my case of not being a nice compassionate conservative. I have never been compassionate towards violent criminals and I make no apologies. And btw, I am NOT talking about drug possession, frauds or white collar crimes. I am talking about violent crimes here. It is much safer for the public to put someone who robs a convenient store 3 times behind bars forever than risking to put him back in society.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#8)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:19:04 PM EST
    Anonymous, I would much prefer to spend my tax dollars on educating decent normal people instead of rehabing violent criminals Why can't we do both? What's this instead of BS? If somoene hadn't pissed away our Govt surplus to his wealthy pig friends (oh yeah, I got my $300. I bought a house with it LOL), and pissed away another 200 Bill (so far) on an oil binge, we could do both, and more, for a long, long time. You're either rich or stupid. Maybe both.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:28:27 PM EST
    If we haven't pissed away govt surplus, we will be better off to spend it ALL on education, rather than on criminals. "Why can't we do both? What's this instead of BS?" What part of the concept of "addition" you do not understand. If I have $100, I can prefer to spend it all on apples, I can prefer to spend it all on orange or $50 on each. I cannot spend $100 on both. If you tax the public for more money, the additional money can also go to education instead of criminals. There is always a better use of money rather cuddling criminals (education, health care, build more roads ...).

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:48:42 PM EST
    Who are we kidding Che, anon is right. There is no such thing as redemption, or change, and prosecutors never make mistakes. We should adopt Fundamentalist style justice...beheadings, torture, all crimes punishable by death, etc. That will make us all "safe" and the guilty shall feel the wrath of the righteous. On a serious note, I hate how some people think.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:59:13 PM EST
    "There is no such thing as redemption, or change, and prosecutors never make mistakes." Well prosecutors can make mistake. But making sure we are punishing the RIGHT person is a different issue of HOW we should punish them. No, I don't believe in redemption, not to violent criminals anyway. Releasing them back into society and risk them on law-abiding citizen is a crime. I would rather risks their discomfort behind bars forever. I am glad we have the 3 strike laws in CA to make that a reality. "We should adopt Fundamentalist style justice...beheadings, torture, all crimes punishable by death, etc. That will make us all "safe" and the guilty shall feel the wrath of the righteous." Torture is probably too far. Some crimes punishable by death is a GOOD thing. I don't care what the guilty will feel as long as we are not feeling their presence. On the other hand, if we have public flogging (like Singapore), there probably will be a lot fewer criminals. "On a serious note, I hate how some people think." I am glad you are in the minority. Most californians are not soft on crimes and get tough on crime laws such as the 3-strike laws and Megan laws have overwhelming support here.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:13:34 PM EST
    ...these inmates will be released, do you want them rehabed or angry at the world?
    so sad rational and logic; to no end gains.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:44:32 PM EST
    How long has 3 strikes been around? You still have crime in CA, don't you? And a huge financial mess I am told, maybe locking people up forever has something to do with it? Not all people who commit a violent crime will do so again. For example, OJ killed his wife, who else has he killed? The rabid, unrehabable pyscho criminal is somewhat of an urban legend in my opinion. A few do exist, but most kill/hurt someone they know, and aren't a threat to kill/hurt random strangers. What are you so afraid of? Have you been a victim perhaps? Just admit it anon, you aren't about safety, you're about vengeance and bloodlust. To each his own, but I prefer compassion and faith in humankind.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#14)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:44:50 PM EST
    If you're going to lock them up, might as well throw away the key because, with the system we have, they come out worse than when they went in. No, I don't believe in redemption, not to violent criminals anyway. If you go to church, you better ask for some yourself.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:49:54 PM EST
    Good for Friedman. And speaking as a Californian, the 3 strikes laws need to be revised.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:56:17 PM EST
    "Not all people who commit a violent crime will do so again." True. But you have to admit there are SOME that will. Why risk releasing the wrong person. Keeping them ALL in prison guarantee none of them will hurt anyone else again (except their fellow inmates, which is not a big concern of mine). Yes, there are still crime in CA. And if we keep locking them up, there will be fewer of them commiting crime as long as none of them get out. "If you're going to lock them up, might as well throw away the key because, with the system we have, they come out worse than when they went in." And indeed that is the idea of the 3 strikes laws. "If you go to church, you better ask for some yourself." I don't believe in God and I don't go to church. And there is nothing (well, not big important things like crime anyway) I need redemption for. Expressing a tough law-and-order view is not a crime nor anything that should be apologetic for.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:02:46 PM EST
    Aside from being just plain mean, I suppose Devore (did you even have to look to know he's a Republican?) hadn't considered what a powerful tool this sort of privilege can be to a warden. If you want people to play nice, it helps to have both carrots and sticks.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:06:20 PM EST
    Noname:
    It is much safer for the public to put someone who robs a convenient store 3 times behind bars forever than risking to put him back in society.
    Part of the purpose of conjugal visits is to keep the family together while Daddy is gone for a decade. And when he gets out, he'll be less likely to commit another crime with a support system in place, i.e., a family to go home to. No, it doesn't always work, but in our society, we are supposed to give people the benefit of the doubt, and every chance to become all that they can become. Someone who is in for their first robbery is a lot less likely to commit those second and third ones if they feel like a human being with a bit of hope for the future.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:34:10 PM EST
    Under what conditions are conjugal visits allowed? It surprises me that security issues don't trump all arguments for these activities. Are these visits supervised? Taped? Is it possible that violent felons are allowed unsupervised visits at all? Am I missing something?

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#20)
    by roy on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:40:18 PM EST
    I found this more interesting:
    Their plan would require Californians to buy health insurance, much as they are now required to buy auto insurance.
    Maybe if Californians hadn't given their government authority over every little thing, their government wouldn't be tinkering in anybody's sex life.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:45:26 PM EST
    "Part of the purpose of conjugal visits is to keep the family together while Daddy is gone for a decade. And when he gets out, he'll be less likely to commit another crime with a support system in place, i.e., a family to go home to." I doubt a significant percentage of violent criminals are daddies with a stable family. And I also doubt that a significant percentage of spouse will not at a divorse the moment she knows the man is going to be in prison for 10 years. We write laws for the "average" criminals, not the one or two outliners. "No, it doesn't always work, but in our society, we are supposed to give people the benefit of the doubt, and every chance to become all that they can become. Someone who is in for their first robbery is a lot less likely to commit those second and third ones if they feel like a human being with a bit of hope for the future." We give everyone the benefit of the doubt in the court system. You are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and I am a firm believer of that. And there are convicted violent criminals where many are convicted with direct evidence with NO doubt of the possibility of innocense. They have every chance to become whatever they want BEFORE they chose to commit a violent crime. In a society with 12 years of mandatory education, I have no sympathy for anyone who *cannot* get the idea that commiting a violent crime is pretty much given up all of their future. And frankly I am not too concern about their feelings nor their future. I am a lot more concern about the lives and hopes that they have destroyed.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 07:27:28 AM EST
    Keeping them ALL in prison guarantee none of them will hurt anyone else again (except their fellow inmates, which is not a big concern of mine).
    Now you really scare me. Bottom line, crime is part of life, it has always existed and will always exist. Innocent people will always be hurt, regardless of how we run our prison system. The only way to rid the world of crime is to rid the world of human beings. That being said, I prefer to treat prisoners as humanely as possible, and continue to believe in the ability of a human being to change and be redeemed. My father spent time in prison for a violent crime 40 yrs. ago, upon his release he went on to raise a family and lead a good life. I'd like to see others be given that chance instead of throwing them to the lions like the ancient Romans, as you seem to suggest is appropriate.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 07:43:54 AM EST
    I doubt a significant percentage of violent criminals are daddies with a stable family. And I also doubt that a significant percentage of spouse will not at a divorse the moment she knows the man is going to be in prison for 10 years. We write laws for the "average" criminals, not the one or two outliners.
    Your doubt is not evidence of the truth or falsity of any proposition, and, further, while you may prefer that the law only consider average cases, that's certainly not the universal way laws are designed, and that preference is certainly not anywhere close to universal. And, anyway, its not like all prisoners get conjugal visits.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 08:20:57 AM EST
    Fires Floods Earthquakes Pete Wilson Ronald Reagan Anonymous Coward Psycho Posters -- All reasons I'm glad I don't live in CA --

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 08:24:42 AM EST
    KDog, I used to just like you, but I'm startin to luv ya now.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 08:40:04 AM EST
    Not all people who commit a violent crime will do so again." True. But you have to admit there are SOME that will. Why risk releasing the wrong person. Keeping them ALL in prison guarantee none of them will hurt anyone else again (except their fellow inmates, which is not a big concern of mine).
    They, they, them, them. You're not for law and order. That requires a sense of justice which you obviously don't possess. What you do possess is exactly the kind of irrational cruelty and small-minded, knee-jerk one-dimensional loyalty to draconian punishment that would have served Spain well during the inquisition, or been indispensible in tossing the gas pellets down the chute in Nazi Germany (they considered the Jews to have criminal intent).
    On the other hand, if we have public flogging (like Singapore), there probably will be a lot fewer criminals.
    Um....they have a lot of criminals. Didn't stop all of those criminal slaves from escaping either.
    I think anyone who advocate cuddling VIOLENT criminals is a weasel who do it for political gains or misguided.
    Um, I think it's coddle, unless you were talking about their spouses conjugal rights. They are probably doing it because they're horny.
    They should all be sent to an island and have the pleasure of keeping each other company. I guess prison is the second best option.
    Um...England tried that, stupid. That's why most Australians are white and why Scottish folks are living in Nova Scotia. And gee, it didn't work too good (300 years ago) so they went back to prisons. Additionally, Carlos writes:
    It surprises me that security issues don't trump all arguments for these activities.
    What are you worried about, Carlos, escaping sperm?

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 08:58:58 AM EST
    Thanks mfox, the feeling is mutual. That's one of the main reasons I post here, to know there are people like you and me, and not everyone is like our anonymous friend on this thread. Obviously, prison issues are a little personal for me after what my father experienced. Things seem to be only getting worse.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 09:00:44 AM EST
    "Bottom line, crime is part of life, it has always existed and will always exist. Innocent people will always be hurt, regardless of how we run our prison system. The only way to rid the world of crime is to rid the world of human beings. That being said, I prefer to treat prisoners as humanely as possible, and continue to believe in the ability of a human being to change and be redeemed." This is just a silly generalization. Crime cannot be eliminated but crime rate can be reduced. Keeping people who are more prone to commit violent crime AWAY from society is one way. Are you saying if we lock up ALL the child molestor FOREVER, it won't even save ONE child from harm? "My father spent time in prison for a violent crime 40 yrs. ago, upon his release he went on to raise a family and lead a good life. I'd like to see others be given that chance instead of throwing them to the lions like the ancient Romans, as you seem to suggest is appropriate." No doubt that colors your opinion and he is the exception rather than the mean. And you are quite right, I think throwing murderers and rapists and child molestors to a little room with no door out (lions seem to be a bit cruel) is quite appropriate.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 09:07:51 AM EST
    "They, they, them, them. You're not for law and order. That requires a sense of justice which you obviously don't possess." "They" are the few individuals (less than 1% of the population) who commited violent crimes. Here are the statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm). US has 2M inmates which is less than 1% of the population. In 2001, about 49% of them are in for violent crimes. How many of these people comit crimes again after they are released. How many crimes will be prevented (not all, but some) if they stay in there forever. As oppose to "them", "we" are the 99+% of the normal, law-abiding, tax paying people. These scums are obviously not of the norm and I don't see any issue of justice considering them as "them". Are you suggesting you want to consider them part of your social circle? And you believe you should treating people who murder, rape, molest children and rob same as your neighbor? I am glad I don't share your values and have some sense of right and wrong.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 09:47:32 AM EST
    Couple more things...
    Keeping people who are more prone to commit violent crime AWAY from society is one way
    That sounds an awful lot like "thought crime" to me. Again, scary.
    Are you suggesting you want to consider them part of your social circle?
    I consider all the world as part of my potential social circle. Besides my father, I have a few friends who did time and who I consider good people. Regardless of your prejudices, I know for a fact people can change, and the only way to find out is to give them a chance. How does the saying go, you don't throw out a bushel over a few bad apples.
    How many of these people comit crimes again after they are released.
    I'd bet a lot do commit crimes upon release, part of the blame there must lay on how we run our prisons. We run our prisons like crime universities. Go in a thief or a drug dealer, come out a cold-blooded killer.
    How many crimes will be prevented (not all, but some) if they stay in there forever.
    Simply, the end does not justify the means. I think you would prefer living in a totalitarian state. You seem to admire Singapore style justice, is that really the best America can hope to do?

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#31)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:12:06 AM EST
    “-- All reasons I'm glad I don't live in CA –“ I suppose the blue state secession has been called off?

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:14:55 AM EST
    "That sounds an awful lot like "thought crime" to me. Again, scary." Not "thought crime", I am refering to people who HAVE commited violent crimes. "I consider all the world as part of my potential social circle. Besides my father, I have a few friends who did time and who I consider good people. Regardless of your prejudices, I know for a fact people can change, and the only way to find out is to give them a chance. How does the saying go, you don't throw out a bushel over a few bad apples." Good for you but I will pass. There are 99%+ of other people I can socialize with and I doubt I will ever have the need to enter the social circle of convicts. "I'd bet a lot do commit crimes upon release, part of the blame there must lay on how we run our prisons. We run our prisons like crime universities. Go in a thief or a drug dealer, come out a cold-blooded killer." Just keep them in there and you won't unleash a cold-blooded killer upon the 99%+ of good people. I don't care about who to blame, I care about not letting them out. Having said that, I will blame them more. Who makes the decision to commit violent crimes in the first place? Prison is just society reaction to cancers like that. "Simply, the end does not justify the means." I don't see anythign wrong with the means here. Locking up criminals, even forever, is a much more civilized way of dealing with scum than chopping off their hands or shooting them which still happen in many parts of the world. "I think you would prefer living in a totalitarian state." Don't confuse totalitarian with law and order. Texas is a perfectly democratic place while it has much harsher justice (which I like) than CA. You can have a perfect democracy while dealing with criminal harshly. In fact, the widely popular 3-strikes law in CA is a perfect example of the people requesting the government not to coddle violent criminals. "You seem to admire Singapore style justice, is that really the best America can hope to do?" That is not the best, but certainly that direction that we should go and at least in the states that have tough laws (3-strikes, megan ...), the state government as well as the people seem to be agreeing with me.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:28:21 AM EST
    Are you suggesting you want to consider them part of your social circle?
    For all I know they are. I don't check with co-workers, fellow bus riders, the people in the supermarket, or even my neighbors to find out if they have committed a violent crime or, more importantly, if they are considering it. And you believe you should treating people who murder, rape, molest children and rob same as your neighbor? I am glad I don't share your values and have some sense of right and wrong. What neighborhood do you live in, OZ? For all I (or you) know they are are neighbors, which is exactly the point. Please try to hear this one point. I'd like to hear your opinion, without the name calling. Once upon a time, we of Western civilization believed that the punishment should fit the crime (eye for an eye, etc). However, this eliminated the mitigating factor of intent, i.e., if someone is joking around and accidentally pokes your eye (or tooth!) out, it is punishable in the same way that one would be if one intentionally put out a person's eye or tooth. Additionally (have you read Les Mis?), we arbitrarily used the phrase "violent criminal" to refer to people whose circumstances sorely tempt this categorization. (In Les Mis, Jean Valjean is caring for his seven younger siblings who, without a societal safety net are starving. He breaks into a bakery, steals a loaf of bread, is arrested and labeled a "violent" criminal, when he was actually just poor. Given the centuries of injustice and suffering by these arbitrarily labeled criminals, we decided (during the enlightenment - ever heard of it?) that we could do better. Imagine Jefferson commenting on this thread that "it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned" HA! So as much fun as mob justice, oppression of the poor, confessions obtained by torture and lots of hangings were, we thought... "could there be a better way". Then some silly people who somehow got a little power (not as smart as you, anon, I'm sure) had a few ideas. First, they thought, maybe the punishment for a crime should reflect whether the offender meant to commit it. This brilliance obviously made them go crazy, cause next they thought, 'what if incarceration is to protect the public from criminal intent, as opposed to exacting some kind of price in human suffering'? But, the no name in the room said, 'if the punishment is too low they will just go out and do it again.' The less smart than no name folks thougth about it and had another brilliant idea: "What if we take into consideration whether or not this was a one-time crime due to particular circumstances or whether the person is incorrigible. We'll call it...parole!" Bully! The whigs and tories exclaimed. "But how will we get elected if all the no names think we care about these prisoners" Good point, said no name. So they scrapped the whole criminal justice system so lawyers could become prosecutors, prosecutors could become D.A.'s and D.A.'s could become govenors and Presidents. It also cleared the way for actors who play tough on law and order for entertainment to use their ability to suspend disbelief in real life (see Reagan).

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:29:47 AM EST
    I guess we will have to agree to disagree. It is obvious, however, you have no clue how awful it is in prison, since you would be so quick to lock up so many "forever". I think out stances boil down to this.... I believe in second chances and you don't. Oh well. FWIW, I'm quite aware my views on most things are not considered "mainstream".

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:32:07 AM EST
    Hi PW. I'm still hoping Texas will seceed. If your lucky and tectonic plates shift in your lifetime, you won't have to worry about us Bluepers as we'll all be underwater. Kind of like Atlantis, doncha think?

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:39:13 AM EST
    Kdog, now I'm thinking of you like the kid in "He's got game" I'm thinking your Af-Am (I don't know why, did you say so on a comment?). No name also doesn't factor in the liklihood that certain segments of society are statistically more likely to be labeled "violent criminals" than other segments who statistically commit the same crimes.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:40:25 AM EST
    Hear Hear mfox! Sometimes I wish we had a time machine to show people how things used to be.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:52:09 AM EST
    "Please try to hear this one point. I'd like to hear your opinion, without the name calling." Sure. I am not disagreeing that civilization have moved forward and eliminate all the barbaric practice (poking out eyes comes to mind). However, I think the examples that you cite are extremely examples. There *are* repeated child molesters. There *are* repeated robbers. There are murderes who do it in cold blood. And in many of these instances, there are ample evidence to show them who they are. And I am saying we should punish them as harshly as possible. In my opinion, the pendulum has swung too much to the side of the criminals. This system spent too much resources (my tax) and time to consider their excuses and feelings. The people have demanded, rightly so, and the pendulum is slowly swinging back. Remember we are NOT arguing a matter of absolute but a matter of degree. "Imagine Jefferson commenting on this thread that "it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned" HA!" And since this is a democratic country, I can, and I am, disagreeing with Jefferson in spirit. With the check and balance of our legal system. I seriously doubt that we have 10% innocent in our prison system. Since we can never completely eliminate errors, the question is what % you are willing to live with. I am willing to live with a few % error. Given the low chance of a law abiding citizen to be arrested, it is less likely that a law-abiding citizen like myself is ever going to be in prison for a violent crime (given I have not committed one) than striking by lightning and I can live with that. "I think out stances boil down to this.... I believe in second chances and you don't. Oh well." A bit more than that. I don't believe the second chance of any violent criminal should outweight the risk of any innocent who may get hurt of said criminal. And I don't believe their second chance is worthwhile for us to spend tax dollars to pursuit while there are so many other more important priorities (education, health care, reducing the deficit, transportation and even reducing taxes).

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:52:54 AM EST
    No mfox, just a working class white boy of Irish and Lebanese descent.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:55:50 AM EST
    Anon, you say the best way to slove the problem with how our current system often times releases a criminal who is more violent then when he went in is to keep them in. How about we try to change how the system is run? Why not try rehabilitation? I would think it's cheaper in the long run then keeping every single person who ever committed a crime in prison indefinately.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 11:27:09 AM EST
    I do agree some criminals belong in jail for life, though I still say they should be treated as humanely as possible. Many others are capable of changing or are victims themselves of circumstances beyond their control. Society is best served weighing each case on it's merit, and choosing an apt sentence that includes some type of rehabilitation.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 11:57:12 AM EST
    abhor at the thoughts of using my tax dollars to buy ENTERTAINMENT products for any violent criminals (TV, music, books, gym, ...).
    They do this to maintain order in a prison, for the safety of the guards and inmates alike, not to reward the inmates.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 12:08:23 PM EST
    "They do this to maintain order in a prison, for the safety of the guards and inmates alike, not to reward the inmates" Solitary confinement can do the same and it is much cheaper too.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 12:13:11 PM EST
    I don't believe in rehabilitation
    That's all I needed to hear, I'm done.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 02:03:48 PM EST
    I stopped reading one quarter of the way down after noname "cuddling" (i think it means coddling) posted his like eighth comment. Noname cuddler, the next time you get stopped for speeding, I hope the cop r*** you with the nightstick sideways then buries you alive.

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 02:04:29 PM EST
    "you say the best way to slove the problem with how our current system often times releases a criminal who is more violent then when he went in is to keep them in. How about we try to change how the system is run? Why not try rehabilitation? I would think it's cheaper in the long run then keeping every single person who ever committed a crime in prison indefinately." I did not say "single person who ever committed a crime in prison indefinately". I say keep all VIOLENT criminals in prison indefinitely. There is a big difference. We are not talking about innocent mistakes that some college boy drinking a bottle of beer in his car. [chatter deleted, this commenter is limited to four comments a day. All in excess will be deleted.]

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 02:05:17 PM EST
    "I do agree some criminals belong in jail for life, though I still say they should be treated as humanely as possible." The issue is what "as humanely as possible" means. In my books, as long as they are not tortured physically or starved, that is humane enough for me. I abhor at the thoughts of using my tax dollars to buy ENTERTAINMENT products for any violent criminals (TV, music, books, gym, ...). And like I said before, I don't believe in rehabilitation and I don't want my tax dollars to be spent on it. [Ed. this is your last comment for the day, you are limited to four. I think you'd be happier reading another blog.]

    Re: Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 02:43:25 PM EST
    I detect a hint of violence inclination from RW. I would never wish violence upon another decent law abiding citizen unlike you. I think this speaks volume of why RW may want to coddle (and yes, please continue to make fun of my one mistyped word) violent criminals. I am sure he is secretly wishing (but may be too coward to carry out) violence on people he does not agree with as oppose to just discuss the issues peacefully like myself. And every time I got stopped by the police (which is quite rare, last time is a broken break-light couple of years ago), the cop acted in a friendly and professional manner.

    Calif. Bill Would Ban Conjugal Visits | 48 comments (48 topical)