What do Paris Hilton and evil female cops have in common?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by dcmdale

I am not on board with Peter's suggestion, but how do we eliminate both the reality and perception of special treatment for people in special areas?

First of all: What I am dealing is cops who have done crimes with natural persons as victims. I have no problems at all with the treatment (as it is described in newspapers) that other criminals which are put into special cells recieve.

Well, if you are totally against violent ex-cops being forced to share cells with inmates of other types, there are still methods which takes away the reality and perception of special kid-glove treatment. Just off the top of my head:

1. They could be forced to eat their meals with their hands handcuffed to the sides. Lean forward and put the face into the bowl or plate, or go hungry.
2. They could be put in a cell with 24-hour camera supervision, which is streamed onto web sites accessible to all.
3. They could have their access to phone/letters/visits revoked.
4. They could be forbidden to have any access to psychologist/spiritual guidance.
5. They could be made to look at other inmates getting something positive (better food, reading material, a phone call, whatever) while they are left without.
5. etc.

Note that none of the above will turn a jail term into a death sentence, which is a desiderata by you (and me, I might repeat). However, they will cause suffering and take away the perception of country-club jails.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia entry on 8th amendment

The Court held in the case Trop v. Dulles (1958) that punishing a natural born citizen for a crime by taking away his citizenship is unconstitutionally excessive, being "more primitive than torture" because it involved the "total destruction of the individual's status in organized society".

Weems v. United States (1910) held that a punishment is cruel and unusual if it is excessive. (The Weems case dealt with a sentence of cadena temporal, a punishment which mandated "hard and painful labor", shackling for the duration of incarceration, and permanent civil disabilities.)

I concur, in general with the sentiments expressed by the cited court cases. However, it is my opinion that the 8th amendment should be rewritten so that protects cops who have done crimes with natural persons as victims from death and amputation, but specifically not from any other class of punishment.

It is not that I want harsh punishments to be inflicted on all sorts of criminals - on the contrary, I find many US. punishments on the tough side, while Swedish punishments generally about right in the length of incarceration. What I do want, however, is that the constitution and relevant federal/state law separates cops who have done crimes with natural persons as victims from all other classes of criminals, and awards far fewer protections to the former. Regarding all the other classes of criminals, I would like the 8th amendment to be rewritten so that it expressly prohibits death and amputation, and furthermore all the punishment types which presently are forbidden. (FWIIW; I am also against 3-strikes laws unless all counts are for crimes equal to, or exceeding, aggravated assault in severity.)

Considering the Trop case, citizenships can be taken away for lesser crimes (taking part of the military forces of a country not at war with USA, and others IIRC). Therefore, I find it only just that cops convicted of nonlegal violence on the job should be possible to to lose their citizenship. In many US. jurisdictions, relatively minor crimes can lead to permanent loss of voting rights, which has been upheld by the courts.

Considering the Weems case, I am for hard labor (but not labor which in and of itself leads to physical damage) for wayward cops. Note that jail inmates generally are forced to work, so this is only a difference in degree, not in principle. Long-term shackling of wayward ex-cops as a purely punitive measure (not a part of prisoner control) is also perfectly OK with me. Since voting rights can be permanently revoked as it is, I see no difference in principle from that and "permanent civil disabilities".


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

eerr... what? I do not understand your comment at all. Care to elaborate?

I was making an arch reference to your statement

They will make his life awful by yelling at him, playing awful music on the radio, keeping him awake at night

which seemed to me to imply that such as these are what passes for bad behavior in Swedish prisons. Whereas in medium- and maximum-security American prisons it's more like rape and murder. If the victim is lucky, it's a quick murder. Often it is not. I don't think you have a good idea of what sort of creatures are incarcerated in these places or what they are capable of doing...

And to think that any supervisional system can prevent it is naive. Convicts are nothing if not creative in circumventing rules and restrictions. That they manage to make weapons, brew alcoholic beverages and obtain drugs in the environment of a cell block ought to suffice as evidence of this.

I often cite the example of Bob "Bonzai" Vickers when conversations come 'round to capital punishment, and people offer that life imprisonment is a fine alternative. Vickers managed to kill a cellmate with a toothbrush while in prison on burglary convictions. He went on to commit almost a dozen attacks on guards before being convicted for the cellmate's murder and sent to death row. Later, he actually escaped briefly, and murdered yet another inmate with an improvised firebomb made from hair gel, in the process nearly killing several others with the smoke thus created.

All of the methods devised by prison designers and correctional administrators failed to prevent all of this. Murders and other crimes even occur in Supermax prisons, the most secure and heavily monitored and regimented prisons in the country. Such things are simply not preventable without resorting to practices which would not pass muster as humane treatment. At-risk prisoners cannot be protected in general population. Sometimes they cannot even be protected in isolation, but at least there's a chance there. A cop, informer or pedophile in prison is unlikely to survive very long otherwise, and they would die not because of what they did but because or who they were on the outside.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

1. They could be forced to eat their meals with their hands handcuffed to the sides. Lean forward and put the face into the bowl or plate, or go hungry.
2. They could be put in a cell with 24-hour camera supervision, which is streamed onto web sites accessible to all.

Isn't this the same sort of punishment by "humiliation" which has been so thoroughly excoriated by the international community for its occurrence at Abu Ghraib? Tsk!

3. They could have their access to phone/letters/visits revoked.
4. They could be forbidden to have any access to psychologist/spiritual guidance.

Alas, you would need to get around the voluminous interpretations of Constitutional protections ( specifically of the "cruel and unusual" phrasing ) by the US Courts over the years. All of those sorts of treatment would most certainly prompt civil rights lawsuits at the very least.

5. They could be made to look at other inmates getting something positive (better food, reading material, a phone call, whatever) while they are left without.
5. etc.

Anti-discrimination laws.

See, technically the philosophy of the American correctional system has been dragged away from punishment to either rehabilitation or of incapacitation. Is prison still punishment? Definitely. More so than either rehabilitation or incapacitation? Certainly. But you simply cannot say so officially, and you cannot implement policies designed to punish without running seriously afoul of the courts and the ACLU et al. You must be politically correct at all times. You cannot design special punishments for prisoners based on who they are; that would be to usurp sentencing guidelines and restrictions laid out by superior courts and legislatures which have survived challenge up to the Supreme Court.

What I do want, however, is that the constitution and relevant federal/state law separates cops who have done crimes with natural persons as victims from all other classes of criminals, and awards far fewer protections to the former.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment pretty much precludes unequal treatment of individuals based on who they are...

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!




I get the impression that you (and several others in this thread, but I only ask you to answer for yourself) consider the point of punishment of violent cops to be rehabilitation. That is, after the punishment, they should return to a productive life, and have a "good soul" or something like that.

Is that a correct description of your preferred intent with this kind of punishment? {snip}

I don't think rehabilitation has been an actual goal (other than getting lip service) of the US prison system for at least the past 25 years or so.

My main objection to your proposals is that they violate the Constitution and general law, and beyond that are arbitrary. Additionally, as Inquarta pointed out, your proposed treatment likely violates human rights norms.

While you would limit it solely to police officers (presumably convicted of violence?), why should it be so limited?

Is a police officers beating up an innocent (or guilty) suspect worse than rape? So lets punish the rapists the same way. Is it worse than child molestation? Lets punish the molesters the same way. Is it worse than parental child abuse? Lets punish abusing parents the same way. Heck, lets punish those who don't report child abuse the same way.

--Philistine

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

If you reread, you will notice that I have stated that they should not be killed by their inmates. To spell it out, I also think that they should be amputated.

What do you mean by "amputated"? I generally understand it to be to cut off a limb, which doesn't seem to fit the context.

Given that those two critera are met, what is so wrong with subjecting them to "about as close to hell on earth as it is possible to get"? Do you feel pity for them?

Generally, I don't feel pity for them, but it depends on exactly what they did, and the circumstances. To be clear, you are advocating torture and humiliation as a form of punishment--though only for a small class of prisoners.

The American system does not allow for this--nor, I assume, does the Swedish.

--Philistine

[latenight]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!




In which case you would get extra time for false accusation. It is not easy to prove something that has not happened.

Under the system suggested by me, not only would cops in general refrain from on-the-job-crime, they would also keep tabs on each other. The colleague-to colleague trust would be diminished. All very good things, IMO.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

In this example, I am a bad cop.....should I be put into jail in general population, I will be killed or worse. Therefore, whether I get extra time or not really doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot to me. So I lie, since it has a chance to get me out of general population. The accusation has to be investigated which takes time, which in turn postpones me being put into general population. Oh and the falsely accused? His life is ruined. Innocent or not he will always be looked at differently. Bad plan.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Philistine

What do you mean by "amputated"? I generally understand it to be to cut off a limb, which doesn't seem to fit the context.

My Bad!

I missed a very important word in that sentence: It should read: "To spell it out, I also think that they should NOT be amputated."

Sorry about that!

Originally Posted by Philistine

Generally, I don't feel pity for them, but it depends on exactly what they did, and the circumstances.

For me, there are no ifs, buts, or maybes in this situation. I feel no pity for them whatsoever, and I want them restricted from contact with anyone who does.

Originally Posted by Philistine

To be clear, you are advocating torture and humiliation as a form of punishment--though only for a small class of prisoners.

Torture: Assume that what Inq says about the US. Jail system in the post referring to Bob "Bonzai" Vickers, it is impossible to guarantee their life in a cell where other types of inmates have physical access to them. Therefore, that suggestion as it was outlined in my threadstart is impossible. I will have to modify it. If one has a cell within a cell, so that the sole ex-police is protected by bars on all sides, but also surrounded by a larger cell housing the inmates chosen by his victim, then he should be safe to life and limb, but not from other disagreeable stuff. One might have to have two layers of bar walls, but with the appropriate technology that will be a solvable problem.

Humiliation: You bet I advocate this! They have, IMNSHO, richly deserved it. Why should they not?

Originally Posted by Philistine

The American system does not allow for this--nor, I assume, does the Swedish.
--Philistine

Which is precisely why I advocate changing laws and constitution first, and penal practice only after that. You are correct in your assumption, BTW.

The legal systems (both USA and Sweden) do not allow for this in writing, that is correct. However, what do you think happens after the reverse crime - a criminal beating up a cop? Well, I heard the nephew of a Swedish cop telling me that exact thing: he got a torture-beating by the whole cop department in the cell. All of them lied in court to protect each other.

In contrast, those two crimes are quite different in heinousness. Cops should expect to deal with nasty people, and they are paid to do precisely that by the rest of us in order to protect us. That criminals are dangerous to cops is quite simply in their nature. Risk is a part of the job, and if they have a problem with that they should apply for another job.

Cops beating/mistreating non-cops, OTOH, is a totally different thing. They have misused special priviledges/rights, and done something which is not in the nature of what should be expected from them. That is just what traitors do, so those two groups of crimes should be similar in graveness.

Two Swedish examples, written down entirely from memory:
1. A 70-ish man was at a gas station, and complained to the cops inside a cop car which happened to be there that some kids were driving recklessly. While doing so, he leaned on the car door - one cop had would down the window to the bottom. That cop told him to take away his arm. The old man said "no", and both cops immedieatly sprang out of the car to pummel him with their nightsticks. The whole thing was filmed by the security camera of the gas station.

In the lowest court, the cops were found guilty, and both lost their jobs (in case of the second cop she had only been employed for a few weeks or months). They then took it to higher court. The lawyer for the cops sucessfully argued that the unarmed old man hand posed a threat to both cops, and that he had managed to hit both of them simultaneously while they were standing on different sides of the car. The cops got their jobs back, and the old man was struck with fines. Cops all over Sweden cheered from the just verdict.

2. A cop at the police station in Handen, a suburb of Stockholm, had a special thing for young boys - 14-yearolds, to be exact. Legal age for sexual activities is 15, BTW. He would arrest young boys on either totally fabricated or trumped up charges. In some cases, it was for real things, though. During interrogation, he would force them to masturbate to "conclusion" infront of a videocamera. Since so many boys thought that they would never be believed, or were scared by him, or were so ashamed so that they did not want to tell anyone, he got away with it for some time. Eventually, there was one who spoke up and got believed, so the whole thing was unearthed. In this case, however, justice prevailed and he got a jail term. However, it was decreased compared to what it would have been if he would not have been a cop, since he lost his job also.

There was an uproar, and the cops at the Handen police station had the gall to say that they disliked that ordinary citizens expressed their extreme displeasure at the police station as a whole. Those same cops did not say the name of the miscreant, which would have left them off the hook.

In both cases the non-criminal cops did not publicly come out against their wayward/sicko colleague, which is one of the most enraging parts of both the two sordid affairs. The group loyalty in that job is stronger than the loyalty to the law, which is simply bad.

So, Philistine: I have provided you with the pertinent details of two cases. What on earth do you think that they deserve, if you could set punishments? What is so wrong with humiliating the 2nd ex-cop?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[latenight]

Well, she just got out of jail......


...and age of consent in Sweden is 15? Wow!

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Philistine

My main objection to your proposals is that they violate the Constitution and general law, and beyond that are arbitrary.

Which is precisely why I advocate chaning law/constitution first, and practice after that. I think workarounds can be found regarding the "arbitrary" part. Specify in detail how other punishments than jail time and fines should be meted out, specify that they can not be decided by anyone else than the court, and what each unit of such a punishment compares to in jail time.

Originally Posted by Philistine

Additionally, as Inquarta pointed out, your proposed treatment likely violates human rights norms.

Has that stopped the present administration?

Heck, I have precious little hope that the law will be changed in order to comply with my wishes. I do have some sense of what is politically possible. But that should not stop me from expressing my preferences!

Originally Posted by Philistine

While you would limit it solely to police officers (presumably convicted of violence?), why should it be so limited?

Because I find them the worst of the worst, after war-time traitors.

Originally Posted by Philistine

Is a police officers beating up an innocent (or guilty) suspect worse than rape? So lets punish the rapists the same way. Is it worse than child molestation? Lets punish the molesters the same way. Is it worse than parental child abuse? Lets punish abusing parents the same way. Heck, lets punish those who don't report child abuse the same way.
--Philistine

In all these 4 examples you seem to have put your logic upside down. I would have expected that you think that if crime A is worse than crime B, then the punishment for crime A should be worse, not that the punishments should be equal. Have I misunderstood you? Can you rephrase the last paragraph?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

In all these 4 examples you seem to have put your logic upside down. I would have expected that you think that if crime A is worse than crime B, then the punishment for crime A should be worse, not that the punishments should be equal. Have I misunderstood you? Can you rephrase the last paragraph?

I was making the point that I think that there are many crimes which are "worse" than police violence against citizens. Generically (though of course individual cases vary) rape, child molestation, and severe child abuse I find significantly worse--(let alone murder) and so I find it strange that your proposal would apply to only one type of crime.

I just find your proposal unworkable, and suspect that ultimately such treatment would be applied to all prisoners--because it's never a losing proposition for politicians to be seen as being "tough on crime."

--Philistine

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Given that those two critera are met, what is so wrong with subjecting them to "about as close to hell on earth as it is possible to get"? Do you feel pity for them?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Pity? Not particularly. But I also feel that the punishment should fit the crime. In the case of child molesters, et al, then they may very well get what they deserve. Drunk drivers, perhaps, too (I was in a very bad accident with an underage drunk when I was 6, so I have a colored viewpoint of this.) Cops who commit crimes? Depends on the crime. I think, say, theft is a very bad thing. I don't think it should lead to someone being raped on a daily basis.

Not wanting someone to go through hell doesn't mean I feel pity for them, or want to let them go. There are stages in between the two extremes, and the appropriate one should be used in each situation.

[dcmdale]

I feel like we are mushing several legal concepts together:

1. Are penalties for the various crimes associated with “being a bad cop” too low?

This is a hard one both practically and politically. Politically, cops (both management and labor) are well connected and no politician wants to be labeled as being anti-law enforcement. Practically, determining good cop from bad cop is often harder than good citizen from bad. The nature of the job means that we give them the right to do things that otherwise would be typically considered bad (like shooting people or using force to subdue them) and give them sometimes conflicting guidance. Fact situations come at them quickly and they don’t always understand that reality of the situation as it is developing. Good cops fear that honest mistakes will get them punished as bad cops. Bad cops use this to get away with being bad.

2. Does the separation of bad cops from the rest of the prison population cause the intended penalties to be improperly mitigated?

I think that legislators and judges are aware that ex-cops will be housed separately and take that into account to some degree.

3. What role should random mitigation/enhancement of punishment have?

American law has never really favored randomness; however, other cultures have had different opinions and I am not sure that a case couldn’t be made for it.

4. How has the current understanding of the 8th Amendment reduced us (with a few exceptions) to 3 basic punishment types (death, imprisonment, and fines) from a much broader array that included concepts like humiliation, pain, etc. and is this a good thing?

Again, points can be made on both sides.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Panopticon-inspired jails have already been built, also in the USA. Anyway, with modern surveillance technology and given the few number of jail cells that are affected, it is not a technical or monetary problem.

Inquartata was being smart. The posting date was the anniversary of the death of Jeremy Bentham who first proposed the panopticon.

[introspective]

Well, the new news is that Ms Hilton is home-bound with strep throat [or something undisclosed] and an ankle bracklet, I personally feel it's adequate protection of the public against a heinous offender; and punative enough if she doesn't move a muscle. But beyond that maybe she should be required to attend some Traffic Video Classes offered by the Motor Vehicle Bureau about Drinking and Driving; and take another written test for her license. Then she should have a suspended driving license for 6 months and she can HIRE a professional driver for her outings.

The big picture tells me though, that Nation-wide, we need more commonalities. From State to State, we need to have more consistent laws and rules and have them more consistently applied. That would resolve alot of problems.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Torture: Assume that what Inq says about the US. Jail system in the post referring to Bob "Bonzai" Vickers, it is impossible to guarantee their life in a cell where other types of inmates have physical access to them. Therefore, that suggestion as it was outlined in my threadstart is impossible. I will have to modify it. If one has a cell within a cell, so that the sole ex-police is protected by bars on all sides, but also surrounded by a larger cell housing the inmates chosen by his victim, then he should be safe to life and limb, but not from other disagreeable stuff.

Vickers killed the second fellow under just these conditions. The guy was sleeping, Vickers tossed a home-made firebomb at him through the bars of his cell. He died from burned lungs and smoke inhalation, and several others on the same cell block suffered injury from smoke inhalation as well.

Now, this happened on death row, so the other inmate was also under a death sentence. It got carried out a little early, but I am not unduly appalled by it happening. However, if it can be done in the heavily regimented environment of death row, it can be done in any cellblock.

This is what I mean about the ingenuity of inmates. It's a fiendish ingenuity, but it's ingenuity which is almost impossible to forestall nevertheless.

I'd say that hey, maybe we should hang them by shackles from the walls, like the prisoners in cartoon medieval dungeons...except that Vickers once did a demonstration of how to get out of manacles and various other sorts of restraints used in prisons, for a reporter. So that probably wouldn't work, either.

Personally I think that if you are going to imprison people like this it ought to be in holes. Just construct a series of vertical concrete shafts, too deep to permit a prisoner to throw things up out of it, and lower one guy into each. You lower their meals and other supplies to them on a line. Other than that you leave them to their own devices. They can't reach each other or the guards, so they can't injure them. They can't throw feces on them. They can't spit on them. They can't do anything but "wait for god".

Of course, the ACLU would never permit it.

Which is precisely why I advocate changing laws and constitution first, and penal practice only after that.

That's incredibly difficult, though---just administratively, political realities aside.

I find them the worst of the worst, after war-time traitors.

Worse than John Wayne Gacy or Dean Corll?

Worse than child rapists?

Worse than terrorists?

Worse than
http://www.liu.edu/cwis/CWP/library/...0/lynching.htm ?

Worse than http://www.mhrn.org/newsarchive/599murd.html ?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Isn't this the same sort of punishment by "humiliation" which has been so thoroughly excoriated by the international community for its occurrence at Abu Ghraib? Tsk!

Well, of course it is humiliation! What else would it be?

Personally, what bugged me about the Abu Ghraib scandal, as describen in the newspapers, was:
1. Punishment was decided upon by those who should not have authority to do so.
2. The punishment was clearly excessive (by being both humiliating and painful) in comparison to the crimes that the punishees were accused of. They were a strange mix of common criminals, mentally deranged people, guerilla fighters, murderers, and some other groups. None of those crimes rise to the same level of heinousness as police brutality, IMO.
3. The discipline among the soldiers in Abu Ghraib had broken down.

OTOH, if the Abu Ghraib treatment would have been meted out to Frank Wuterich and the rest responsible for the Haditha massacre, then I would not have had any problem with it. I assume that that goes for most Europeans, BTW.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Alas, you would need to get around the voluminous interpretations of Constitutional protections ( specifically of the "cruel and unusual" phrasing ) by the US Courts over the years. All of those sorts of treatment would most certainly prompt civil rights lawsuits at the very least.

As I have posted several times in this thread, the antidote to that is to first change the 8th amendment, and then introduce new laws governing new penal modes.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment pretty much precludes unequal treatment of individuals based on who they are...

Then why can one incarcerate prisoners at all? Would not the "Due Process" clause deal with that?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson