2/19/97
I am a correction officer in a maximum security prison and I believe I
have a bit of an angle on some of the things you were discussing with
Cathy. First off, I would like to say that part of what makes the United
States the way that it is is because the last two hundred and fifty
years the U.S. has developed in its own way. For her to compare
Vancouver to Seattle is comparing two totally different cultures, apples
to oranges. If we suddenly implemented Vancouvers laws and rules on
Seattle there would possibly be devastating results. Vancouver has had
however many years it has been incorporated to develope its social
system just like Seattle. Different culture, different people. As you so
admirably pointed out even if every law was implemented that the gun
control advocates want, there would still be all the guns on the street.
This factor makes comparing the U.S. to other countries and societies
pointless, the genie is out of the bottle so to speak. Dont get me
wrong, I am happy that I can own a personal weapon so that in that one
rare case it saves my life or a family members life. My point is just
this, the U.S. is its own entity and it has to be dealt with from a
internal viewing and not by comparison to other societies.
Now, getting to my slant on things. The bottom line is this, if a
individual wants to hurt another individual they will do it. People have
been killing each other for as long as they have exsisted and they will
continue to do so. Cathy made the point about knives and screwdivers,
"...the aggressor must be in contact with his victim, not at a distance
from which it is easy to kill in a instant." She should come to my
prison and see just how many inmates can kill in a instant, and they
(hopefully) do not have guns where I work. They make their own weapons
and the sole purpose is to kill and maim. What else do they need a knife
in prison for. You see, the point I am trying to make is that if the
intent is there they will do harm. A large number of the inmates in my
institution did their VIOLENT crimes without the aid of a gun. By the
way, does Cathy think that locking these people up is a solution to the
crime problem? It is not, prison is a cake walk for many of these
people, the lifestyle is better than what they had on the street. And
they still have access to the innocent (i.e. staff, visitors, other
inmates who have not committed violent crimes and could be productive
members of society one day). Do you see what I am getting at? Do you see
one gun in this whole society that I am detailing? No, It is intent. If
the intent exsists the deed will be done. By the way, a car can kill
very quickly from a distance as well.
Perhaps Cathy should not feel so secure in the place she is living. The
technology to make a gun could probably be found right here on the
internet, I dont know I have not looked, but I do know how to make a gun
out of material you could buy in a hardware store. It is not that hard.
Dont get me wrong, I am not a militia member or anything I have simply
educated myself so I know what to look for at work. If a person wants
this technology to use against her they will. Of course they will
probably just use a knife on her if that is their intent.
I am getting long winded so I will make one final point, if guns are
only to kill and maim then why do those of us in the law enforcement
community carry them? If they are so evil then even cops should not have
them. A police officer WILL NOT be there with his gun 99 times out of
100 when a citizen needs protection. I dont care what country you live
in. I have 2000 examples of this just 25 minutes away if you guys are
that into stats. One disadvantage of prison is that it gives the average
citizen the sense that the offender just dissappears or goes away
someplace. I have got news for you, they are right here among us. Those
in prison did their crime outside of the fence and the one thing that
you can be sure of is they will pick the person least capable of
defending themself. One way or other, Cathy's community is defended by
guns, she has simply relegated that responsibility to someone who is
perhaps responsible for maybe 10 city blocks or more.
So in closing, we can talk politics and morals and personalities until
we are blue the face but none of those things will deter or stop someone
from hurting, raping, or killing you the same way a gun will. Yes a gun
can kill, so what, without them people would just kill with something
else, the only problem is it would be much harder for the innocent to
defend themselves. Guns need no apologies for what they do.
Thank you for reading this,
2/20/97
Only one point I must contest - "does Cathy think that locking these people up
is a solution to the crime problem? It is not.....". I think locking these
people up is exactly the answer. At least in prison they are in a semi-controlled
environment where they are not free to prey on society. Corrections personel
are at least to some degree trained and ready for the risks they face with those
predators, as opposed to the general population which is not. Perhaps you
could elaborate here as to what you think the "solution" would be.
2/21/97
Before I go to far with this I should tell you that I am going to speak
in broad terms about the problems I see because I do not want to make
comments in this forum which could get me into trouble.
Let me try to explain it this way. In my institution inmates do have
access to more people than just corrections staff. And yes I will give
that we are trained to deal with them, and we also make the choice to go
to work every day, but we also have inmates housed in all different
security levels and all different crimes and they are NOT segregated
from one another. Just believe what I am saying because I cannot
eleborate further. The point is yes, all in prison are guilty of
something but there are those who have not done violent crimes who are
exposed to murderers everyday. This may sound hard to believe but you
see, our institution is the only female prison in my state, all
offenders come to us, all four security levels. They are around each
other all the time.
Now to my other points. Let me assure you that I am not opposed to
incarceration for offenders, in fact I can explain its benefits as well
as anyone. I have just seen that prison is not difficult for the inmate.
In fact for many of them the way that prison is run in our times there
is very little determent because there is very litle punishment in
modern incarceration. I believe that prison should be more of a
punishment than it is these days. You stated how quickly inmates are
rolled out of prison on parole or early sentence release. How is this
going to keep an offender from committing more violent crimes. They can
commit the crime, come to prison, get a college degree and their teeth
fixed and go back out on the street none the worse for wear. With a
system like this do you really think we have an effective solution for
crime. People who are already on the street get a better life in prison,
medical care, a bed with a roof over their heads, full hygiene needs
taken care of, guaranteed three meals a day, a college education, TV &
VCR, and, if you are so inclined, a lover (dont laugh, I'm serious). Yes
we need to take care of the physical needs, no argument there, but the
system should be taking it back out of the inmate instead of just
investing so much in them. Can you say chain gangs?
Speaking of which, the departments which have reinstituted the chain
gangs have fallen under a lot of criticism for making the inmates work
on the gangs, and yet these same states have seen a decrease in inmate
population for the first time in years. Does the term PAY for the crime
start to make sense now? If the inmate is going to be miserable for a
little while he or she might think twice about committing the crime.
I guess it comes down to this, if we are going to lock them up lets not
just separate one society from another one. Lets make it a prison not a
rehabilitation center or a reformatory. People should be punished for
their crimes and the system today is not adaquate at this.
Tying this in with gun control, if you know the owner of that house
could shoot you if you break in you would be stupid for breaking in, but
if you know the owner of that house is going to slap you on the wrist
for breaking in you will have no reason for not breaking in,
particularly if that same owner will help pay for your college education
after the fact.
I hope this cleared up my points for you, I know it is a little off
your debate subject but it is a point worth making.
Brian
2/22/97
I have seen several studies and interviews which confirm your statements about
the contempt for prison that today's criminals have. One young punk summed it
up perfectly - "When I'm out on the streets, I hang around with my homeboys
and get into trouble. When I'm in jail, I hang out with my homeboys in there
and get into trouble. It's pretty much the same". Chain gangs and the like
would no doubt change that attitude a great deal.
To me, there are really two major purposes for prison sentences. One is
punishment for one's crime. I know some people today aren't big on punishment
as a behavioral tool, but we've seen what carnage results when criminals are
treated leniently and have no fear of justice. The second purpose of prison
sentences is to protect society be removing the criminal from their midst.
Criminals behind bars cannot prey on the people outside. I understand that
they still present a threat to other inmates, guards, and other personell, but
it is at least somewhat limited and controlled (and should be more so).
I don't mind going into discussions on prisons here, because gun control
activists always use the crime problem as a basis for their arguments, so
really any topic directly related to crime is relevant. I appreciate your
input as a corrections officer, as you have a first hand view of things that
are beyond the scope of most people's experience.
On a final note - I saw in the latest American Rifleman magazine a mock window
decal for gun control supporters. It has a picture of a handgun, circled with
a red line through it (the popular NO signal). The text on the decal says,
"PROUD SUPPORTER OF GUN CONTROL - THIS IS A GUN FREE HOME". I wonder if gun
control advocates would like to put decals like this on the windows of their
homes, and if not, if they'd care to tell us why?
Dear Spider,
Brian
Well put Brian. You bring up many points that I have been harping on for years.
Guns are not the only tools available to criminals - knives, clubs, etc are
quite effective as well. The Seattle-Vancouver study is so fatally flawed in
so many ways, the only people who give it any credibility are those who haven't
looked at the study from a broad perspective, and those that don't care if it's
a total crock as long as it supports their point of view. The police are not
and can not be there to protect you in your moment of need - they only arrive
after the fact to clean up the mess.
Dear Spider,
I can see how what I said could be confusing as to my feelings on a
solution. I will try to clarify.
Well, Brian, let me start by pointing you towards Spider's Criminal Justice
Reform Act of 1996, linked to from my main page. That'll give you an idea of
where I stand on our courts and penal institutions. I agree with what you're
saying - violent and non-violent inmates should be segregated, absolutely. I
also agree that criminals should not receive benefits in prison other than
the most basic healthcare etc - no college educations, no cosmetic surguries.
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio has the right idea for jails - tents in the middle
of the desert, bland food, nothing but C-SPAN or Newt Gingrich's college video
on the television - ain't no joyride there.
Get your own Free Home Page