From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Sep 16, 2026 at 12:21:46 PM PDT, "The True Melissa" <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:

BTR1701 wrote in article <118eouf$3l0df$5@dont-email.me>:

On Sep 16, 2026 at 5:43:56 AM PDT, "The True Melissa"
<thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:

I personally was also accused of wanting to abolish all police
and prisons -- a deeply insane claim -- for suggesting that she
should be treated humanely. With all this projection going on,
there's no way to continue discussing any of the real issues.

I didn't accuse you of it. When you said the concept of prison in and of
itself is inhumane, I said I would ask you the same question I always ask >> the
"abolish prisons" crowd.

I didn't say the idea of long-term confinement is always
inhumane. I did say that combining long-term confinement with
intense unpleasantness is inhumane, and I stand by that.

Confining someone for decades by definition is going to be intensely unpleasant.

Think about the difference between a whipping and sending a child
to his room to think about what he's done. The whipping is
intended to cause pain, so that the child will avoid the
undesired behavior out of fear of another whipping. Being sent to
one's room was much less unpleasant, but it lasted hours, and was
supposed to produce an underlying change in the child.

Imagine whipping the child for hours. Now, *neither* thing
happens. By the end of the ordeal, it no longer has anything to
do with the original offense. It's simply abuse, and the child
will likely become a worse person as a result.

No one is whipping or beating inmates in prisons. That's a crime and in the rare instance that it occurs, the perpetrator is arrested, charged, and then returned to the prison as an inmate himself.

This is what we're doing by sentencing people to years in the
equivalent of gaol. The results show that prison increases
criminalty

So no prison, then? Or only minimal sentences for even the worst, most
depraved offenders?


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Sep 16, 2026 at 1:23:00 PM PDT, "The True Melissa" <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:

Rhino wrote in article <118erlh$3l39d$1@dont-email.me>:

On 2026-09-16 3:21 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:

BTR1701 wrote in article <118eouf$3l0df$5@dont-email.me>:

On Sep 16, 2026 at 5:43:56 AM PDT, "The True Melissa"
<thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:

I personally was also accused of wanting to abolish all police
and prisons -- a deeply insane claim -- for suggesting that she
should be treated humanely. With all this projection going on,
there's no way to continue discussing any of the real issues.

I didn't accuse you of it. When you said the concept of prison in and of >> >> itself is inhumane, I said I would ask you the same question I always >>>> ask the
"abolish prisons" crowd.

I didn't say the idea of long-term confinement is always
inhumane. I did say that combining long-term confinement with
intense unpleasantness is inhumane, and I stand by that. The
results show it.

Some would argue that long term confinement is inherently inhumane, no
matter how gentle the treatment.

Think about the difference between a whipping and sending a child
to his room to think about what he's done. The whipping is
intended to cause pain, so that the child will avoid the
undesired behavior out of fear of another whipping. Being sent to
one's room was much less unpleasant, but it lasted hours, and was
supposed to produce an underlying change in the child.

Imagine whipping the child for hours. Now, *neither* thing
happens. By the end of the ordeal, it no longer has anything to
do with the original offense. It's simply abuse, and the child
will likely become a worse person as a result.

This is what we're doing by sentencing people to years in the
equivalent of gaol. The results show that prison increases
criminalty, so that's demonstrated as well as inevitable, but
somehow we seem to think that "hit them harder and harder" is the
best way to move forward.

What would you do about someone that had a long history of drunk driving >> who had had previous accidents and charges, maybe a bit of jail time,
certainly some probation, opportunities to go to rehab who then drove
drunk again and then killed a family in the process? We know this has
happened. If you were the judge what would you do?

He sounds like a good candidate for long-term incarceration in
that mental hospital we were going to start.

Mental hospitals are every bit as tortuous as a standard prison. Not only do you lose your freedom to be in society, you lose all bodily autonomy as they inject you with drugs against your will, drugs that deaden the world around
you and make your own mind a prison that you can't escape.

Alcohol Use Disorder is diagnosable, after all, and dipsomania isn't a physical
illness.

Diagnosing someone with a mental disorder is only the first step. You then
have to treat it. What do you do when your patient/convict won't cooperate
with your therapy?

Same question for a serial killer with ample evidence against him,
including eyewitnesses and a box full of forensics that no expert could
impeach.

He is also going to be a long-term resident at the Rhino and
Melissa Facility for the Dangerously Ill, and in his own
exceptionally secure wing... but it'll still be humane, and it'll
be easier to make that happen under the new system.

How is that any different than prison? He's locked in a cell, monitored by guards, and never allowed out again. And since there's no way to treat psychopathy-- it's a deformation of the brain that no pill or therapy can change-- it's got to be a life sentence (unless you're willing to let him out and expose more innocent people to his predilections).

There is also the death penalty to consider. A lot of people
would want to argue that back and forth as well, but if it's on
the table, the serial killer seems like a good candidate.

Well, that would be the ideal solution, yes. But we're not allowed to do that in my state even though the people have overwhelmingly voted for the death penalty not once, not twice, but three times. Our narcissistic governor, however, decided that in this democracy he's always saying needs to be saved from Trump, his word overrides the votes of 40 million people and he's unilaterally outlawed all executions.

Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world there would be a treatment or a
drug or a philosophical regime that would rehabilitate such a person but >> I don't think that is realistic here and now.

If we divorced punishment from confinement, we'd likely free
enough resources to be humane to those who must be confined for
public safety.

I don't get what specifically you think is inhumane about prison that wouldn't also be present in whatever system you imagine that would also lock people
away from society for decades.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

BTR1701 wrote in article
<YfadnVEXGO0CvjH3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>:

On Sep 16, 2026 at 12:21:46 PM PDT, "The True Melissa" <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:

I didn't say the idea of long-term confinement is always
inhumane. I did say that combining long-term confinement with
intense unpleasantness is inhumane, and I stand by that.

Confining someone for decades by definition is going to be intensely unpleasant.

Surely you realize that there are degrees and kinds.

I've volunteered at two different long-term mental hospitals. The
first one (in the 80s) was the regular kind before we
collectively decided they were bad. It wasn't great as a full-
time residence, but it was certainly much better than prison.
There was no comparison, really. The second (in the 90s) was at a
facility for patients with neurological damage, and it was more
institutional, but still nothing like a prison.

I've also served two months in prison.* The difference is vast.
In a mental hospital, the long-term patients are treated as
residents. In a prison, the inmates are regarded as objects to be
constantly threatened and body-searched.

Again, I'm not saying there aren't some people who deserve this
sort of treatment. I *am* saying that dishing it out for years
does nothing to reduce criminality; it's thoroughly shown to
*increase criminality*, and therefore is a pretty doomed approach
to reducing crime.

Have you seen Black Mirror? There's an episode named "White
Bear" which is germaine here.

Think about the difference between a whipping and sending a child
to his room to think about what he's done. The whipping is
intended to cause pain, so that the child will avoid the
undesired behavior out of fear of another whipping. Being sent to
one's room was much less unpleasant, but it lasted hours, and was
supposed to produce an underlying change in the child.

Imagine whipping the child for hours. Now, *neither* thing
happens. By the end of the ordeal, it no longer has anything to
do with the original offense. It's simply abuse, and the child
will likely become a worse person as a result.

No one is whipping or beating inmates in prisons. That's a crime and in the rare instance that it occurs, the perpetrator is arrested, charged, and then returned to the prison as an inmate himself.

I'm not pointing at any specific actions. I'm talking about the
simple effect of locking someone in a horrible environment, which
prison is. It's not just confinement; it's confinement somewhere
horrible.

That's the problem.

This is what we're doing by sentencing people to years in the
equivalent of gaol. The results show that prison increases
criminalty

So no prison, then? Or only minimal sentences for even the worst, most depraved offenders?

I already said I liked Norway's system, so I'm not sure why you
people keep insisting I want to abolish incarceration.

Please stop with the strawmen.


[*]To avoid being asked, I'll go ahead and say that it was for
driving without a license. A sane state wouldn't do that. While I
was there, I once had a long conversation with a career criminal.
She told me that she hated to see people enter with their 60-day
and 90-day sentences, because prison changed people. Nobody was
ever the same after a prison term. She wasn't wrong.

A couple of *days* in an environment like that, on the other
hand, might be the sort of sharp shock some people need.
Stretching it out ruins the point and only does more harm. It's
worth bearing in mind that DUI recidivism is lower after a couple
of days in jail than after more extensive treatment programs.
--
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2