You're right, literally the only two options are human rights abuses or milkshakes and cakes.
El Salvador Mega Prison
- Thread starter Mr Pigeon
- Start date
You're right, literally the only two options are human rights abuses or milkshakes and cakes.
It originated from LA. Exact origins are not clear but the common theory is Mexicans in LA were discriminating against them and they formed their own group. Things have obviously escalated since.
Here is a cell in Halden Fengsel, a maximum security prison in Norway.
Just so we're clear, I'm not at all suggesting that this is realistic for El Salvador. It's a direct response only to claims about the US and deterrence.
Here is a cell in Halden Fengsel, a maximum security prison in Norway.
feck no it would be like living in IKEA.
Looks surpringly like a university dorm room.
we’re going in circles and I don’t know why. You ask for evidence where harsh sentences are a deterrent and I keep giving you example of NYC in the 90s where harsh sentences as a deterrent drastically changed the crime statistics.
So yeah I’m lost
Some truly cretinous talk in here. Are people misreading the 100 people to 10 by 10 cell or something? Perhaps they've overlooked the never seeing daylight for the duration of their sentences? Maybe you're okay with 100 people sharing 2 toilets?
Honestly, anyone who is okay with this is a fecking monster.
Honestly, anyone who is okay with this is a fecking monster.
Better than milkshakes and cake!
Here is a cell in Halden Fengsel, a maximum security prison in Norway.
Just so we're clear, I'm not at all suggesting that this is realistic for El Salvador. It's a direct response only to claims about the US and deterrence.
I was sort of waiting till someone brought up the whole Norway prison stuff. There's a lot that can be discussed about this but if I posted a picture of how crime is dealt with Saudi Arabia and then compared their crime/incarceration graph to Norway, it would tell a total opposite story.
I think there's a lot you can learn from Norways model, and specifically, developed countries with good existing infrastructures and control can learn from it but it's not a perfect model for every society as it is so often used.
Easy for us to have this approach comfy in our climate controlled houses but there's a reason 90% of El Salvador is in support of this. These animals have been ripping families apart with no regard or mercy. You wouldn't care about how they shit if you were put in their shoes either.
It's bigger than a lot.
Yeah you're right. The room looks quite wide, really.
You've won me over.
I already gave you the example of RICO. Unless you're denying that had an effect on organized crime in America?
What's "long-term" and how do you know they are not right?
The article might question whatever, the results are there. Unless the person who wrote that can give a legitimate proof that this is the reason crime is down.
From what I'm reading now, the main benefit of RICO was being able to put people in prison for charges that didn't work before. I've already mentioned previously that a higher chance of being arrested for illegal activity does work as a deterrent, so I agree on that. Where's the evidence in RICO that harsher sentences are an effective deterrent though?
Now I'm confused. You bought up that social reform won't work right away and I agree. So what are you trying to argue about? And what do you know about Bukele's social reforms? Or are you just arguing for the sake of it?
Your quote says that murder rates dropped significantly and then doesn't conclusively state what's the reason, with one possibility being a deal with gangs. Hence: I'm not sure what to make of that.
Anyway, the original point here was that harsher punishment (longer in worse prisons) has never been shown to help society (by working as a deterrent to crime and/or reducing recidivism). I've yet to see evidence to the contrary.
Hint: harsh prison sentences were not the cause.
The entire US justice system is the perfect case study to prove conclusively that tough prisons and long sentences do nothing to deter criminals.
What they're doing in El Salvador is wrong but this is wrong too and an insult to the victims of max security criminals and taxpayers imoHere is a cell in Halden Fengsel, a maximum security prison in Norway.
Just so we're clear, I'm not at all suggesting that this is realistic for El Salvador. It's a direct response only to claims about the US and deterrence.
Which is why angry people aren't picked for jury duty. If one of these things had torn my family apart I would probably be fine with them living like this - whilst I was angry about it. Which is the crux of the matter. Emotion has no place within the confines of the law. Justice isn't about how much suffering you can deliver to someone. If value is being placed on human life, and the lives that these criminals have taken, then their lives also need to be valued. And sticking them in a lightless box, cramped with 99 other inmates, and (let's face it, based on everything so far) no medical care is not any better than the shit these murderers did to their victims.
Can't be arsed to quote
The idea of the RICO act was to effectively prosecute crime family heads and seniors who were removed from the actual crimes they ordered, as long as they could be linked with an enterprise connected with the illegal activity. It was just a new legal framework that was effective in neutering the power of the Mafia. But the Mafia still exists, and they're less loud than they used to be in the Gotti days. Plus other organized crime networks are more decentralized and fragmented compared to the hierarchical structure of the Mafia to avoid RICO prosecutions. Plus, mob bosses and capos feared the loss of liberty, that was punishment enough. Not prisons being horrible. To bring up RICO in this thread is nonsensical.
The idea of the RICO act was to effectively prosecute crime family heads and seniors who were removed from the actual crimes they ordered, as long as they could be linked with an enterprise connected with the illegal activity. It was just a new legal framework that was effective in neutering the power of the Mafia. But the Mafia still exists, and they're less loud than they used to be in the Gotti days. Plus other organized crime networks are more decentralized and fragmented compared to the hierarchical structure of the Mafia to avoid RICO prosecutions. Plus, mob bosses and capos feared the loss of liberty, that was punishment enough. Not prisons being horrible. To bring up RICO in this thread is nonsensical.
Why?
Prisons are to keep the public safe from convicts and deprive said convicts of liberty for a time/indefinitely (the deprivation of liberty is punishment enough). Not torture them in the process.
I think deterrence is a part of the process and particularly in the UK and Ireland we have lost that in recent years. Some absolutely absurd sentences being given for some heinous crimes.
But to answer your actual question in fairness I just think the likes of Breivik or murderers or rapists should not have the right to appeal about what playstation the taxpayer is buying them, nor should it even be on the table. These are the worst of the worst. There is no rehabilitating them.
Ok this is bullshit
1. Crime started to fall during Dinkins' tenure as mayor. Giuliani took credit for it but the crime drop already started
2. Crime dropped nationwide in most American cities in Giuliani's tenure. Some cities had those policies. Some didn't. So yeah, Giuliani profited from a nationwide decline in crime. His policies didn't shift the needle much
3. His policies were ABHORRENT. They had a negative impact on minorities in the city. Amadou Diallo and Sean Bell's deaths can be directly traced to Giuliani's transformation of the NYPD into an even more antagonistic force against the city's residents. Stop and frisk was declared unconstitutional. So let's even say his policies were effective (they weren't), they were wrong and illegal and dehumanizing. Why on earth would you point to him as some sort of criminal justice mastermind?
There will be many mentally disabled people there who have well below average IQ, have been raised in the most desperate of circumstances, who have been assaulted, tortured, have had friends and family killed and have felt that a life of crime in a fecked up society is the only way to survive. They may potentially have kids who rely on them, and when they are released in 10 or 15 years or less due to corruption will pass the terror they experienced to those around them and do exactly the same thing they were doing before being caught. They are bad people, who do bad things, and they should be kept away from others. But being sadistic is a reflection of you, and of a society who didn’t give a shit about any of them before they turned to crime, and only care about them now for their usefulness as a political signal of brutality and barbarism.
Last edited:
@shamans, I do agree with you when it comes to harsh prison sentences but I feel there's a lot of nuance as well. Not all crimes are the same just as not all criminals are the same.
I for one don't think harsh prison sentences mean anything to people who were indoctrinated in gang culture and identity, instead prison is seen as an action that will enhance a person's standing in a gang by proving that they will do anything for their street family.
The only way to tackle the central American gang problem is through social measures in conjuction with education and life training, the ties that bind the criminals to that life need to be severed.
I for one don't think harsh prison sentences mean anything to people who were indoctrinated in gang culture and identity, instead prison is seen as an action that will enhance a person's standing in a gang by proving that they will do anything for their street family.
The only way to tackle the central American gang problem is through social measures in conjuction with education and life training, the ties that bind the criminals to that life need to be severed.
1. Length of sentence is different from inhumane prisons. If someone is beyond rehabilitation they should not be let out, but they also should not be treated as sub-human.
2. Prisoners are wards of the state and it is the responsibility of the state to ensure their physical and mental needs are met. If a prisoner works and gets paid and decides to buy a PlayStation what's the problem? He's in prison, not bothering anyone.
If I were a family member of any of their victims I would be extremely bothered and I'd want my state to punish them according to their crime. Part of that, for me, is that they are punished in accordance with how heinous and vicious their crime is. I'm not advocating you strip them of sunlight, exercise and water but Playstations and comfortably furnished sittings are definitely off the table for me. I know I will differ from a lot of the forum on that.
I, for one, am shocked to see DJ Jeff saying these things.
Yeah yeah.. I know.
It works. It creates fewer victims. That's why there simply is no revenge aspect to the Norwegian justice system. The official policy of the Norwegian correctional system is that the only punishment is the deprivation of freedom, in the sense that you're locked up. You don't lose your right to an education, or your right to vote, etc.
There is no death penalty and no ordinary life sentence in Norway, so basically everyone is going to return to society at some point. So the question becomes: what kind of neighbor do you want? One that has been punished, or one that has been rehabilitated? Statistically the latter is far less likely to be a problem. The latter is also much better for society as a whole, since they are more likely to contribute by way of work and taxes.
Fewer victims has to be the ultimate goal and unsurprisingly, treating people like human beings is proving to be the best way of doing this.
Not exactly. First and foremost RICO allowed prosecutors to charge organized crime leaders with being part of a criminal racketeering organization, and impose multi-decade sentences for crimes committed by that organization. Prior to that they couldn't really connect the lower members to their bosses on grounds of organized crimes and thus even if you were caught, unless they had a substantial evidence against you of "criminal conspriacy", at most they would be able to give you a few years in jail. RICO decimated the mafia because now suddenly everyone found themselves with decade long sentences or even life sentences and they had to make deals and rat out on their superiors.
I'm saying that unless you have some magical wand that can transform El Salvador into a rich and prosperous country, that kind of talk is moot. It's a poor country surrounded by other poor countries and a main road on the drug trade. As such, harsh measures need to be taken because the alternative isn't even viable.
Are the murder rates signficantly down? Yes. Then what's your problem with that?
Oh really? Is that why countries like Singapore and Japan, who generally have harsh punishments, are thousand times safer than countries like Sweden and Denmark who have more lenient punishments? In medieval times Mongol territories were among the safest to reside in precisely because Mongol punishment was severe. We can even look further down to ancient Rome as an example. Fact is, harsh punishment deters crimes. In terms of human nature, when there is a possibility of severe punishment for your actions, most people would think twice before doing it. And if it wasn't, they'd just do it because then only the morals, which are usually fickle, determine your behavior.
That doesn't mean harsh punishments completely eliminate crime, but it does deter it. And as far as I'm aware, El Salvador is not a country that has the luxury of treating these people 'humanely'. They're having huge problems with crime and drugs and normally desperate times call for desperate measures. I guess it's easy for you to sit in your cozy chair and pass judgment, but you and I are not the ones having to deal with day to day street violence like these people do.
Someone stole my car once.
At the time I wanted nothing less than the robber being hung drawn and quartered. Actually, i still want this
Good thing the state doesn't take opinions of emotional biased crime victims into account when determining inhumanity of punishment
This post is so all over the place I don't even know where to start but I'll try.
Nobody, let alone country should be subjecting people to this sort of punishment, regardless of crime. They can be strict without actually torturing people.
Can we please get some figures or perhaps a source on how "countries like Singapore and Japan, who generally have harsh punishments, are thousand times safer than countries like Sweden and Denmark"?
Why are you comparing modern society to pre-medieval empires?
Why are you proclaiming facts when you have provided no such thing?
Yes, I agree but the situation in El Salvador is pretty serious. Even when you talk of gang culture, the sort of gangs we might see in developed western cities are nothing compared to MS-13. These aren't some poor kids pushing coke to make ends meat. They're some of the most violent beings out there on planet earth and I can't think of a higher status for a criminal.
I disagree with your last sentence, personally. I think that is a very important part and without social measures we won't eliminate gang culture but strict policing and punishments are an absolute must. Without that, we'll never see progress either. It's a combination of both. You gotta put out the fire but also fix the gas leak (what you are talking about).
Again, easy for us to say because we're not in their shoes but I don't think it's sadistic. People want to see gang members be made an example out of so they can finally live in peace. I wouldn't equate that to sadism.
I knew this would come up when I mentioned Giuliani because his policies are controversial. I don't look at things as black and white and what other lasting events it may have had but the fact is crime in NYC got busted thanks to Giuliani. Since (and during) then, Giuliani has proved himself as nothing more than an asswipe of the lowest kind and unfortunately people like to twist the statistics to make it seem he really didn't do anything. Not only do that stats prove otherwise, but my own family (uncle a cab driver in NYC) and friends talk about how popular Giuliani's policies were and how much safer everyone felt.
I really don't want to start this debate, but I can't say everything I said without giving an answer so here it goes.
1) This statement is statistically true but you're playing with numbers. For context look at stats here: https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm
1st year of Dinkins violent crime: 203,042
last year of Dinkins violent crime: 195,352
When Giuliani took office
1st year: 195, 352
last year: 98, 000
This is just looking at violent crime. You can look at all the other statistics and it will match. The idea Dinkins was getting a hold of crime is just a good clickbait new article or political point scoring but nothing more. You can disregard the stats and try and get a pulse of what people thought back then as well and you'll get the same response. This alone debunks that Dinkins started the cleanup of New York but there's a lot more evidence. Now for national averages
2) Again, while true in numbers context changes it. Only using violent crime as an example during Giulianis tenure the national average is around a 23% reduction vs the 50% or so under Giuliani. Another flaw in this stat is that NYC wasn't alone in strict policing. Many cities took measures to enact these laws and besides, NYC accounts for like 6% of the population of USA so they themselves make a huge chunk of that national reduction that Giuliani seemed to take advantage of.
3) Not gonna argue this because this wasn't my initial argument. Can talk more about this some other time, but I primarily wanna bust this myth of Giuliani's policies being somewhat meaningless.
I know you understand statistics more than I do so I have no doubt if you dug up the numbers yourself you've come to the same conclusion.
Yes, and so the primary benefit of RICO was being able to prosecute people that stayed safe from the law before. As @adexkola also said. But the question was and is: where's the evidence that heavier sentencing was also a factor?
Are you saying that El Salvador has no possibility ever of improving its socioeconomic conditions, so why even try?
Less murder is good, duh. But as with the RICO discussion, the question was whether harsher sentences and worse prisons are a deterrent to crime. Your quote doesn't clarify that since it explicitly states that it's unclear why exactly the murder rate dropped.
@Raven responded to the rest of the post.
This is exactly what's being discussed here, so 'I think' doesn't cut it. Where's your evidence? Cause if you look this up online, you'll only find the experts saying the opposite: that harsher sentencing isn't actually a deterrent; only a higher chance of being caught is. See my post on the previous page. So at this point, we need evidence to the contrary or you're just making things up in your mind.
That's your opinion and an opinion has no relevance in this.
You can check the statistics on this. They're easy to find.
Because the human condition is constant.
I've provided facts, you're just closing your eyes and think parading about morals is somehow gonna save the world. That's the problem with some of you. You refuse to look at the reality of the situation and instead pretending that everything in the world can be fixed by appeals for more humanity.
Because they could get those guys before RICO, as well. What RICO did is allow the possibility of charging them with the act of being a part of a criminal organization instead of being a simple thief, a racketeer or whatever. What that meant is that they no longer got 5 years prison sentences and out with good behavior after 2 years. RICO allowed the prosecution to charge them with multi-decade long sentences and that's when they started to squeal which ultimately ended the mafia in the USA. If you want to close your eyes to the effects of RICO, that's your own problem. But the implementation of it was undoubtedly a massive success in destroying organized crime in America.
No, they can. But that's an issue that is going to take decades, not a year or two. In the mean time, the only way to curb crime is via draconian laws and measures.
Again, I have no deep knowledge on Salvadori politics. But what little I know of Bukele is that he is pretty tough on crime. Evidently, whatever he is doing, is working to a degree since crime fell down 50% ever since he took power. If that means he needs to abuse these cartels, then I won't judge. You guys keep thinking that you can 'reason' with these people when the only thing they understand is violence.
Curious, but do you count NYC under Giuliani as evidence of that? I ask because there are many examples like that throughout the world and examples of rehabilitation working. But, if you're looking at clinical trial style statistics I simply don't know what's out there and how it can even be implemented for each case.
My opinion has no relevance, yet all you've done is post your opinion?
Blowing on about facts and providing nothing but vague shite like "the human condition is constant.". It doesn't make you cool or edgy to support human rights abuses.
Opinions absolutely should not be factored into how prisoners are treated, and that goes for both sides.
The law, however, as provided by the United Nations Human Rights Commission clearly states that all prisoners should be treated thusly;
- All prisoners shall be treated with the respect due to their inherent dignity and value as human beings.
- Except for those limitations that are demonstrably necessitated by the fact of incarceration, all prisoners shall retain the human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and, where the State concerned is a party, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol thereto, as well as such other rights as are set out in other United Nations covenants.
- All prisoners shall have the right to take part in cultural activities and education aimed at the full development of the human personality.
- Prisoners shall have access to the health services available in the country without discrimination on the grounds of their legal situation.
- The above Principles shall be applied impartially.
These are all rights that these prisoners are being refused.
Sorry, but the United Nations is a joke organization that nobody respects and their 'rules' are not even worth a spit. We've seen how well their rules and charters work when Ukraine was invaded by a permanent nation on the council. Every country has first and foremost duty to its citizens first and the opinion of some bureaucrats in Manhattan doesn't matter. If it works, and Salvadorians quite clearly agree with this considering the populartity of Bukele, who are you to argue? Neither you or I are citizens of El Salvador.