Prisons

[Summer]

I apologize if the following seems vague... But I was wondering your opinions on prisons and the sense of absolute control they hold over an individual during their time spent there. Do you believe that the person no longer has rights as they've committed to crime? What if they were arrested for minor violations of, say, not paying for parking tickets over the course of time? Does the crime itself have any influence over your views on their punishment? Is it moral for prisons to manipulate every detail of a person's existence?

Thank you.

Again, I realize that I did not provide a lot of specifics... Hopefully you can work with the above.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Summer

[The Individual]

I apologize if the following seems vague... But I was wondering your opinions on prisons and the sense of absolute control they hold over an individual during their time spent there. Do you believe that the person no longer has rights as they've committed to crime? What if they were arrested for minor violations of, say, not paying for parking tickets over the course of time? Does the crime itself have any influence over your views on their punishment? Is it moral for prisons to manipulate every detail of a person's existence?

Thank you.

Again, I realize that I did not provide a lot of specifics... Hopefully you can work with the above.

Prisoners still have rights. A prison doesn't have absolute control over a prisoner. It is definitely immoral if prisoners are abused or manipulated.

Because in an Objectivist society the car park would be owned by private individuals, if a person has been arrested for a minor crime such as not paying parking tickets, the first thing the authorities need to do is to make sure he pays the parking ticket to the private owners of the car park.

Whether he deserves further punishment is subjected to the Law of the country.

[Castle]

I echo the individual's take on rights. Inmates still retain many rights while incarcerated. If they were under absolute control there would be no way prison gangs could form or for inmates to murde, assault, and rape while in prisons. All of those things are consistent and widespread problems within the penal system. Prisoners lose the application of their rights to the extent necessary to punish the specific criminal act and protect the citizenry. At least within a just system anyway. Looking at the current system, I would hypothesize that the justice system isn't going far enough with true crimes.

Minor offenses are another story. In many, probably most, cases a minor crime is based in other improper systems. The issue isn't if the justice system is coming down to hard on parking tickets, drug use among adults, and other fiat crimes. The issue is that they shouldn't be coming down at all on these things. Not that mistreatment shouldn't be dealt with, but handling current unjust actions by the justice department is an intermediate step to solving the problem. That would be the premise that the legislative body can declare an action a crime by fiat based on faulty principles.

Take the parking ticket example. The owner of the road or parking area can apply fines for certain behaviors he deems undesireable regarding the use of his property. He has no right to enforce them violently, but he does have the right to deny the offender access until they are paid. If the offender refuses to leave or later uses the property without permission he can contact law enforcement to deal with the tresspass. Noone goes to jail unless they flagrantly violate another's rights, and there is no proactive police involvement. The worst a serial parking violator can get is blacklisted from facilities, unless he escalates his behavior to the criminal level. Correct implementation of property rights with stern and impartial enforcement solves a wide range of issues, from minor issues like the parking example to huge ones like polution.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Castle

[The Individual]

I echo the individual's take on rights. Inmates still retain many rights while incarcerated. If they were under absolute control there would be no way prison gangs could form or for inmates to murde, assault, and rape while in prisons. All of those things are consistent and widespread problems within the penal system. Prisoners lose the application of their rights to the extent necessary to punish the specific criminal act and protect the citizenry. At least within a just system anyway. Looking at the current system, I would hypothesize that the justice system isn't going far enough with true crimes.

Minor offenses are another story. In many, probably most, cases a minor crime is based in other improper systems. The issue isn't if the justice system is coming down to hard on parking tickets, drug use among adults, and other fiat crimes. The issue is that they shouldn't be coming down at all on these things. Not that mistreatment shouldn't be dealt with, but handling current unjust actions by the justice department is an intermediate step to solving the problem. That would be the premise that the legislative body can declare an action a crime by fiat based on faulty principles.

Take the parking ticket example. The owner of the road or parking area can apply fines for certain behaviors he deems undesirable regarding the use of his property. He has no right to enforce them violently, but he does have the right to deny the offender access until they are paid. If the offender refuses to leave or later uses the property without permission he can contact law enforcement to deal with the trespassers. No one goes to jail unless they flagrantly violate another's rights, and there is no proactive police involvement. The worst a serial parking violator can get is blacklisted from facilities, unless he escalates his behavior to the criminal level. Correct implementation of property rights with stern and impartial enforcement solves a wide range of issues, from minor issues like the parking example to huge ones like pollution.

Yes, agreed. But can you explain the "there is no pro-active police involvement" part? Shouldn't the police be involved to arrest the person who flagrantly violate the rights of others?

Edited October 16, 2009 by The Individual

[Castle]

Yes, they absolutely should do so. However, the arrest of a suspect is a reactive act, not proactive. The criminal initiates the police response by way of his initiation of force. No "sting" operations, no fiat declarations of legality on the basis that everyone "might" be irresponsible, no regulatory agencies setting rules on the assumption that an entire industry is corrupt while setting conveniently low fines for the criminal acts of the extreme minority. Law enforcement should act as a body's immune system. Vigilant, adaptive, but essentially reactive.

[The Individual]

Yes, they absolutely should do so. However, the arrest of a suspect is a reactive act, not proactive. The criminal initiates the police response by way of his initiation of force. No "sting" operations, no fiat declarations of legality on the basis that everyone "might" be irresponsible, no regulatory agencies setting rules on the assumption that an entire industry is corrupt while setting conveniently low fines for the criminal acts of the extreme minority. Law enforcement should act as a body's immune system. Vigilant, adaptive, but essentially reactive.

Okay, understood. Thanks.

[Summer]

I appreciate the responses.