Could inmates help the system by joining the military?

Community Opinion.

Having inmates lock in prison proposes an expensive budget for any government to big to ignore. Tax payers pay the government for these services in order to establish security among citizens of every nation. Some governments are more corrupted than others, so I just want to focus on western countries, rather than other foreign governments where the judicial system is flawed.

On the western hemisphere crime seems lower specially in continents and countries like Europe, Japan, South Korea… as opposed to other western democracies like the US. The US generally tops the list of most imprisonments per-capita, in comparison to other democratic countries, probably also because of its size.

Crime has a large financial impact on security in many different cities across the US. Detroit, MI always tops the FBI list in murder related crimes .

The legend says that increasing the death penalty would wipe out crime, as seen in a few countries on the Middle East, but it might just be that having easier access to guns could be the real cause of the problem. Some believe, drug consumption impacts crime to higher numbers, and with its legalization crime would eventually go down. Depends what you believe of course.

But with the way the global economy is heading more prisons mean higher expenditure from tax payers and more borrowed money from the fed, no matter where you reside. So it would deem a good idea that prisoners should help with productivity on their spare time, rather than be unproductive, and locked inside without serving a constructive gateway to society.

In fact, historically speaking Armies from different empires jointed prisoners, and mashed them with the militia to avoid sacrificing regular troops. Controversial maybe for some, but strategical and nonetheless effective. During war there is no Mickey Mouse stories, so the re-institution of that ancient military program could turn out to be a good solution, at least financially speaking.

Why sacrifice the soldier with a family, when you can simply joint the army with prison camps, possibly even saving more money to defend your country by not risking fathers and sons. I guess it depends on your moral beliefs.

1)      Why has crime risen in some western democracies and others not?

2)      What would work better to stop and prevent crime: Stricter death penalty laws? Legalize drugs? Something else?

3)      Are guns the main reason why the US tops the highest crime per-capita amongst other democratic nations? Could eliminating guns, dramatically save tax payers money spent in developing, and funding new prisons to incarcerate more criminals?

4)      Should inmates be used for labor to help foment the economy? Example: Making prisons also places for production. Having them work in agriculture, services or using their spare time to be productive rather than passive?

5)      Would you be against using prisoners to become soldiers trained for battle, as a better alternative to sacrificing soldiers who have a life outside the Army?

6)      What “one thing” would you change about your legal system to help reduce crime?

Frank’s Palatnick.

( He was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2008 for ” networking global education administrators in order to understand other countries, cultures and specifically students in order to create a pathway to a sustained peace) 

“The International Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential ( 2010) states in one of its subsections ” Some scientists think that certain genetic characteristics may give rise to a predisposition to criminal or violent behavior. Some people may be genetically ill equiped to cope with frustration or other emotional crises. The impairment of of intelligence caused by chromosome defects may give rise to sociopathic behaviors in individuals. Neurotransmitters such as seratonin, norepinephrine and dopamine may also play a role in provoking violent behavior “.

Taking this one step further, epigenetics, a recently new subdivision of genetics ( 2010), posits that how the fetus is nurtured by both the mother and the immediate environment can have a proportional positive affect on the possibility of the child’s impact on society.

In effect, the loving, well fed and well relaxed mother will give birth to a child that will ‘ pay it forward ‘. The Epigenome, the mapping of the biological organelles that can effect the DNA, shows that, due to this loving, the methylation of the DNA ( a scientific term for the turning on or off of specific parts of our DNA ) affects the physical characteristics of the newborn which include certain parts of the brain.

According to another new developing science entitled ‘ Pre and Perinatal Psychology ‘ scientists have found that stress hormones may affect the mental, emotional and social well being of the child. Scientists state that research indicates findings where maternal stress has been associated with an increased risk of schizophrenia in male offspring and may alter fetal brain growth.

Data also indicates that maternal stress, infection and/or exposure to famine contribute to an elevated risk of depression in offspring. Of critical importance, the brain continues to develop into adolescence and so later influences, such as exposure to child abuse and neglect, must also be taken into account. Studies have consistently shown that adults who experience maltreatment as children are at a much greater risk of developing mood disorders.

In that light, the answer to the question ” What one thing would I change about the legal system to reduce crime ? ” is to alter legal and judicial training to require lawyers and judicial officers/practitioners to fully understand fetal rights and development as it pertains to the Daubert standard of evidence.

The Daubert standard is a universally acknowledged level of scientific validation. It demands that anyone speaking in a courtroom must not only be extremely knowledgeable about the issue being discussed but he/she must be able to prove it through published articles in peer reviewed scholarly journals.

According to the International Bar Association, which publishes the Manual of Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Attorneys, as well as the International Organization of Judicial Training, which created the standards of judicial practice, there are no specific courses that encompass the understanding of fetal rights and development.

Yes. There are course that cover scientific evidence as it relates to epidemiology , medical testimony, neuroscience, mental health evidence and similar topics. This can be shown by viewing the aforementioned websites. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of the Child both have rights that include fetal rights. However, they do not give the evidence for those rights.

I am currently working with an educator in Bangladesh on improving the training of nurse practitioners as well as parents on fetal development and care. I have also begun groundwork on an International Encyclopedia of Judicial Practice that has as one of its peer reviewers a Chief Judge of the Appelate Courts of Egypt.

It will include among many other sections one on ‘ Fetal Rights and Development ‘. I have also prepared a draft of a letter that will be forwarded to the International Bar Association to request the alteration of the ‘ Manual of Human Rights ‘ previously mention including the reasoning behind the understanding and caring of the fetus. In short/conclusion, crime can be almost eradicated if we improve the understanding of the human being from conception and the need/mandate to honor that new being.”

Deborah Weir.

( She lectures at universities in New York and Connecticut  and is a faculty member at the NY Institute of Finance.) 

“No. Six: the one thing to reduce crime – decriminalize drugs.

When we rescinded the Volstead Act, crime decreased because liquor was legal.”

Peter D. Rosenstein.

(He is a non-profit executive, journalist and Democratic and community activist. He once served  as Coordinator of Local Government for the City of New York working in the Carter Administration: and Vice-chair of the Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia.) 

There are varying factors for a rise in crime. It can be more poor people just looking for subsistence; anger at the wealthy or those who people believe don’t care about them; drug trafficking; lack of adequate gun laws; and then again it might be what we consider a crime such as how restrictive drug laws are.

I am opposed to the death penalty and have never seen any studies which show that strict death penalty laws prevent crime. As to drug laws clearly if the United States were to legalize marijuana crime statistics would go down. There would be less arrests and less violence over who can sell drugs and who controls the operations.

Reducing the number of guns in the United States would clearly reduce violent crime. Unfortunately there is also a culture in the US that condones individuals having guns. People like to cite the 2^nd amendment as the permission to buy and carry a gun and the Supreme Court has so far upheld that view. It is my view that the drafters of the Constitution believed that the right to carry arms was meant for militias and not individuals but I am not on the Supreme Court so my opinion at this time holds little value other than to try to elect anti-gun politicians who will try to strengthen our gun laws. I think if we eliminated most of the guns we would not only cut prison costs but most likely cut healthcare costs as well.

I have no problem with inmates being asked to participate in the production of certain items. In the United States we have for years had prisoners make license plates and there are many items that could be produced effectively by prisoners. But I also think that we must pay prisoners for working if they are producing goods for sale. It is a wise use of their time and general manufacturing and agriculture are productive uses of prisoners time.

I am opposed to asking and training prisoners to become soldiers. Prison means incarceration and that is not the life of a soldier. Second we have no right to ask prisoners to fight in battle and risk their lives if they aren’t given the options of every other soldier and that isn’t compatible with incarceration.

I don’t think there is one thing but if it would be the case it would most likely be making private ownership of a gun, other than a hunting rifle,  illegal. I think a more realistic way to reduce crime would reduce the  penalty for smoking marijuana and then look at making it legal after we work out the issues that are involved in that.”

We must change our laws. That would reduce crime. Don’t let these criminals out time and again to commit their crimes over and over. Give people more power in our laws to protect ourselves and reduce the power of the police. That is one of the problems that police have too much power. In their ranks they, too, have criminals. 

Adrew McKillop.

(He has UK national holding a four-year Masters level Economics qualification (UCL London), engineering technology and science qualifications (RAE Farnborough), and more than 10 years professional translating experience in technicaland financial French > English (energy and defense sectors).” 

“Maybe not directly related although I say it is.

Neoliberal Anarchists

Concerning western societies and nations, the “new economy” ideologues of the early 1980s can be fingered as black flag wavers. Their Black Bloc economic ideology militated for the total triumph of a magic disembodied thing called “the market” which would sweep away all traces of antique leftovers from the 18th century – the nation states. Thanks to “the market”, society would be self-organizing and self-running, of course based on capitalist principles applying the Adam Smith slogan that individual greed magically produces and results in collective good. It can only make sense!

The Italian authority on fascism, Renzo de Felice and the British historian Eric Hobsbawm, an authority on “modern nation states” and the nationalist movements which produced them, both argue that the 20th century was very special. Hobsbawm called it “the short century” due to it playing out the hangovers and leftovers from the 19th century nationbuilding era and process that he dates to a precise period starting about 1750-1800. Before then, nothing like what we call “modern nation states” existed. By the era of fascism and nazism in the 1920s in Italy and Germany, the nation state had dissolved into a strange puddle of extreme hyper-nationalism, degenerate ideology and people-politics

Reasons why the “golden era of nation states” can be pushed back to before the 20th century – long before our 21st century – also include Marxism and religion, the new challenge and the old challenge to nation states. However since at latest the 1980s, we also have the killer challenges of the neoliberal economy and globalization, the Internet and dumbing down or de-culturation.

Certainly since that early end of the 20th century, we have the clear existence but no definition of “failed states”. Our only interest is to know how fast the failed-state process runs, like one bad apple put in a crate of apples which infects all the others. All we know about the failed states is “they don’t work” but in the case of the so-called mature democracies of the west, neoliberal ideology has rooted for a global one world state of no-nations held together only by the globalized economy.

This was the supposed evolutionary path. The end of nations was a desired goal.

Accelerated End of The Nation

The neoliberals argued that before the nation state, the global economy already existed, albeit informal and person-to-person or company-to-company, notably based on trade. The absence of national currencies and trade laws was no handicap. The absence of air, train, motorway travel and instant global telecoms was also no handicap. Business was business! The interlude of the nation state only added unnecessary new barriers to the global economy. They said it would wither and fall away – exactly like the black flag djihadists swarming from former Syria into ex-Iraq also proclaim.

Today we are becoming aware of the coming death of nations. We have the probable coming three-nation Iraq, the already de facto three nation state of Libya, the possible separation of Scotland from England, Catalonia and the Basque country from Spain, the Tyrol north from Italy, the real and recent separation of the two Sudans – with almost inevitable border rivalry and conflict mostly driven by oil. There are separatist movements active in Mali and across the Sahel, Xinjiang separatists in China, multiple challenges to the Russian Federation including separatist movement in Tatarstan, Chechnya and elsewhere. Even the small state of Belgium is menaced by movements for local autonomy extending to full declaration of independence by two new states.

Hobsbawn analyzes the historical trends of “modern nationbuilding”, finding that as early as the 1840s and 1850s it had already overreached. Too large nations were created too quickly, from over-diverse components, sometimes using fantasist claims to separate identity, generating new and further internal-separatist movements. Examples he gives include the Garibaldi movement founding modern Italy and the so-called Pan-Slavic nationalist movement, which played a leading role in founding modern Russia and the multiple warring states of the Balkans, whose rivalries between themselves and with external powers helped spark World War I.

The post-1945 world, set by the UN Charter, was simply a remake of 19th century nationalism. It was constructed on “indivisible and recognized” nation states which however accepted power-sharing for the goal of peace and economic development. The UN Security Council was going to be the final arbiter on illegal attempts at changing national frontiers, defining the key concepts of national aggression and war crimes, marshaling “the international community” to punish aggressors and criminals. Defending the nation state!

The “UN system” tried to defend the concept of modern nation states and, due to real world trends accelerating the breakdown of nation states, can only be out-of-synch and dysfunctional. As we know from at least the three past decades, secessionist and separatist movements sometimes aided and abetted by existing nation states, deny the existence of supposed “historic” nation states occupying national territories which are “recognized by the international community”. Over and above resource issues and competition for resource ownership and the economic power it brings, other factors like mass population movements also related to the economy, have all radically weakened the 19th century notion of the “modern nation state”. The people voted with their feet and trampled nation states.

Imperialism and Religion

Alongside Imperialism – which denies national borders and identities – religion always exercized an anti-national role except in certain highly specific cases where the mix-and-mingle of ethnic and religious sentiments could be exploited in the nationbuilding process. Historians like de Felice and Hobsbawm focus the role of anti-religious and anti-imperial movements which spilled over from the “historic era” of modern nationbuilding – which as already noted had overreached by as early as the 1850s. This created the concept of “non-confessional and egalitarian” nationalism, ideally suited to growing democratic movements in the increasingly urban and industrial societies of late 19th century Europe, the US, Russia, China and other existing or future national states.

The modern nationbuilding concept won itself an extension of shelf life, also extended by the anti-imperial, nationalist and hyper-nationalist rejectionist movements of Stalinist Russia, fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, and nationalist movements in European colonies, before and after World War II.

But that reprieve is all long gone. The “modern nation state” is menaced by resurgent religion, especially in regions where Islam is the dominant religion. It is also menaced by economic globalization, Internet, culture-convergence, mass entertainment and mass communication. The will to fight for “the nation” is inversely proportional to the intensity and degree of public sentiment that “the nation” is worth defending. For this to be true, “the nation” has to have special virtues.

To be sure Iraq and Ukraine are two current key examples of “failed states” where a layer-by-layer process of denial of the nation state has reached a tipping point. Supposed “surprise” by US glove puppet media journalists that Iraq army personnel “are abandoning without a fight” can be attributed to their total ignorance of reality on the ground. For Sunni personnel in the Iraq army, ISIS fighters paid for by Saudi Arabia and by other Gulf petromonarchy, anti-democratic, autocratic minority Sunni regimes cannot be treated as mortal enemies. Obedience to Shia muslim prime minister Nouri el-Maliki can even be construed, by Sunni Iraqi army personnel, as a form of treason.

The American “game plan” for rebuilding Iraq after America first invaded and destroyed it, featured what we can call “bourgeois democracy”. Shia communities make up about 60% of Iraq’s population, so they obviously had to have power. This obviously sharpened and intensified very long-dated and traditional Shia-Sunni rivalries – but it wasn’t obvious to western politicians!

The Short 20th Century

Hobsbawm used this title for one of his books to underline that if the 19th century of Imperialism on one hand, and nationalism on the other dragged on a long time, the 20th century of the “modern democratic state and liberal market economy” had a short, bloody and riotous lifespan. The European middle class petit bourgeois concept of “the liberal market economy” was at all times confronted by communism, imperialism, crony capitalism and the bankster cabal, resurgent religion, and pure anarchy – called “ungovernability” today. The 19th century “modern nation state” was born to fail and went down fighting – fighting itself – but today only the path and process of failure concerns us.

Hobsbawn uses various metrics and time intervals, but we could say his “short 20th century” possibly only existed from 1945 to about 1995. The century had a 50-year or half-century span. During that time, the myth of the “indivisible nation state” and the myth of the “liberal market capitalist economy” could run together, and could fool a lot of elite persons as to their life expectancy and credibility.

Well before Y2K, the bastard offspring of modern liberal market capitalism – Marxism – has been totally discredited and denied. Marxism was purely and simply a “reverse video” inversion-and-reversal of market capitalism, so it is no surprise to any intelligent person that Marxism had to fail. The failure of Marxism only proved that its model and mentor of liberal market capitalism was a failure – nothing else. Communism nevertheless speeded the death of nationalism, and certainly in the Islamic-majority countries accelerated the retreat to traditional religious ideology.

The very long-dated struggle between Anarchy and The State in some cases intensified attempts to defeat nationalism, due to the ideological belief that nations are themselves precursors of anarchy. Trying to keep the flame of “perpetual revolution” alive, especially Mao Tse Tung’s Great Leap Forward were defended, by him, as a counterweight to resurgent Chinese nationalism. His “great experiment” probably killed more than 30 million Chinese – mostly by starvation.

Today’s so-called Islamic Resurgence can be called another mutant offspring of pseudo nationalism – in this case Arab nationalism – in which ideological Imperialism is mixed-and-mingled with racism, disguised as internationalism, to produce a cocktail only able to spark wars, ethnic cleansing, purges and mayhem. What we are witnessing, however, is a mega-process. Following this historic interval and the real termination of the 20th century – shutting down its attempts to save the nation state – nations as we presently know them will inevitably disappear.”