Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: robertcloud
Prior to prison reform in the US, inmates were given out to corporations to perform labor. The corporations didn't pay them and worked the prisoners to death in mines without food or rest. This was not their sentence, and families of the prisoners had no idea this was happening. Because of this practice, there was an outcry for prison reform.
Prisons should NOT be treated like a corporate entity. If they are, you would see all the negatives that go along: capitalist bosses starving prisoners, etc.
Society incarcerated them; society has the responsibility to provide for them.
Again, you ignore the very obvious and easily applied safeguards that could be implemented. Prison industries already exist. The idea here is to make them mandatory, and force them to be self supportive.
And why put "capitalist" in there? How many prisoners did Stalin and various communist and fascist states work to death???
Prisoners should be expected to work and carry responsibility... just like normal folks.
Normal folks are not expected to work and carry responsibility. They are expected to pay taxes and obey laws, that's it. If you are independantly wealth you do not need to work or carry responsibility. How can anyone make such an absurd claim when a person like paris hilton exists in this world?
Even the wealthy must have some responsibility and work to maintain their wealth.
At any rate, appealing to class envy is an invalid argument.
No, in fact the wealthy needn't do anything. They can hire someone to take care of their money needs.
I'm not appealing to class envy. I'm providing a counter example. Making inaccurate blanket statements and then using a straw man argument to defend it is an invalid argument.
The only strawman here is coming from you. Sure, you can hire someone to take care of your money, but you still need to be responsible and monitor that person... or you'll end up like Billy Joel.
Irresponsible rich people become irresponsible poor people every day.
Not in all cases. This is such an absurd way to defend your argument that is is truly funny. According to you all wealthy people will naturally decline into bankruptcy if they don't constantly maintain every aspect of their money. No matter who they hire, if they don't monitor these people they will go bankrupt because no one can be trusted in the entire world. Even if it is the pope, or your father, or your father is the pope and it's him, their money is not safe.
Furthermore, this making sure you aren't being cheated is apparently what you call "work" and also "responsibility", which is something any prisoner would gladly do, and not likely even remotely close to what you were offering as a rule of society. If this is what you "expect" out of people, then I would say that you could donate $10 to each prisoner and then expect them not to be cheated, would that then qualify for what you expect minimally out of people?
Perhaps you meant that prisoners should be expected to do what average people do, even if average people are not necessarily expected to do this but do it nonetheless. If that is the case then I agree with you, though I also expect that prisoners should be treated the way an average person should be treated, and should have the same constitutional rights that an average person has. Neither of which are true.