respect, dignity and grace

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

20 hours ago, Rev. Calli said:

Greetings to you my brother,

 

I believe I would have to disagree with you.  Respect is due to all people.  We are all children of God.  Now respecting someone doesn't mean you agree with their actions, or that you even give approval.  Not does it mean that people should not be held accountable for their actions.  But it does mean that even when by their actions someone is subjected to correction and punishment, it must be done in a way that respects their fundamental humanity.

 

Some years ago I read a book titled "The New Centurions" by Joseph Waumbaugh.   In it, one of his main characters, a police officer in LA nearing retirement, talked about his ideas for the prison system.  He believed that prisons should be very agreeable places, in fact, and I believe this to be a verbatim quote "we should supply them with all the booze, drugs and broads they want, just as long as we keep them locked up where they can't hurt anyone else."  I actually kind of agree with that.  People who have proved they cannot live in free society should be restrained, but their imprisonment should be as kind and agreeable as we can make it, because they are never getting out.

 

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

 

 

Let us speak plainly.  If the only goal of prison is to keep people in confinement, until they die, the technology is available.

 

The technology already exists to combine virtual reality -- any fantasy existence a person could want -- with true life support.  This means that if the person leaves his tech hookup, for any reason at all -- like an attempted escape -- death will be close to instant.

 

As a society we can do this.  Of course, it means being honest with our selves.  

 

 

For the truly dangerous, for whom this is not an option -- We have a low tech solution.  We put them in a ten foot pit and keep them there.  They can be supplied with any food or drug they want   -- and they remain until they die.  They will never again have a conflict of any type with anybody.

 

If that's what we want.  If we can be honest.

 

Edited September 8, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Rev. Calli]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Let us speak plainly.  If the only goal of prison is to keep people in confinement, until they die, the technology is available.

 

The technology already exists to combine virtual reality -- any fantasy existence a person could want -- with true life support.  This means that if the person leaves his tech hookup, for any reason at all -- like an attempted escape -- death will be close to instant.

 

As a society we can do this.  Of course, it means being honest with our selves.  

 

 

For the truly dangerous, for whom this is not an option -- We have a low tech solution.  We put them in a ten foot pit and keep them there.  They can be supplied with any food or drug they want   -- and they remain until they die.  They will never again have a conflict of any type with anybody.

 

If that's what we want.  If we can be honest.

 

Greetings to you my brother,

 

For most people, I don't think prison is really the answer.  IMHO opinion, there are only a very few true sociopath's who would literally need to be locked up forever.  Better opportunities for livable wage jobs, better mental health services, decriminalizing certain substances, these would be much more effective, and more humane, then what we have now.

 

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Rev. Calli said:

Greetings to you my brother,

 

For most people, I don't think prison is really the answer.  IMHO opinion, there are only a very few true sociopath's who would literally need to be locked up forever.  Better opportunities for livable wage jobs, better mental health services, decriminalizing certain substances, these would be much more effective, and more humane, then what we have now.

 

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

 

 

Which is why I keep talking about honesty.  And what we want.

 

Being drunk, or otherwise intoxicated, is not of itself, a crime.  Driving while impaired is.a crime.

 

We do need to make a distinction, between behavior which is obnoxious -- and behavior which is dangerous to society.

 

Rehabilitation and Education are better than prison.  When they fail, there is prison.

 

A drunk driver who kills someone -- or many -- should not pass Go.  There is a time to go directly to jail.  

 

A drunk driver -- who is caught driving while impaired -- without a licence -- and plows into other vehicles -- and attempts to flee the scene --  is a dangerous criminal.  There is a time for prison and this is the time.  Now is when we set the example.  

 

Notice please.  I have said nothing about good and evil.

 

[RevBogovac]

8 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Which is why I keep talking about honesty.  And what we want.

 

Being drunk, or otherwise intoxicated, is not of itself, a crime.  Driving while impaired is.a crime.

 

We do need to make a distinction, between behavior which is obnoxious -- and behavior which is dangerous to society.

 

Rehabilitation and Education are better than prison.  When they fail, there is prison.

 

A drunk driver who kills someone -- or many -- should not pass Go.  There is a time to go directly to jail.  

 

A drunk driver -- who is caught driving while impaired -- without a licence -- and plows into other vehicles -- and attempts to flee the scene --  is a dangerous criminal.  There is a time for prison and this is the time.  Now is when we set the example.  

 

Notice please.  I have said nothing about good and evil.

 

 

Why would anybody want any of those two options. Those are just cruel.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 minutes ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Why would anybody want any of those two options. Those are just cruel.

 

 

 

It might be better than being part of the general prison population.  Sometimes, we want the best possible bad choice.

 

[RevBogovac]

8 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Which is why I keep talking about honesty.  And what we want.

 

Being drunk, or otherwise intoxicated, is not of itself, a crime.  Driving while impaired is.a crime.

 

We do need to make a distinction, between behavior which is obnoxious -- and behavior which is dangerous to society.

 

Rehabilitation and Education are better than prison.  When they fail, there is prison.

 

A drunk driver who kills someone -- or many -- should not pass Go.  There is a time to go directly to jail.  

 

A drunk driver -- who is caught driving while impaired -- without a licence -- and plows into other vehicles -- and attempts to flee the scene --  is a dangerous criminal.  There is a time for prison and this is the time.  Now is when we set the example.  

 

Notice please.  I have said nothing about good and evil.

 

 

Which is why anybody who "just" drinks an drives here (in the Netherlands) and gets caught - besides the obvious fine -  has to (mandatory) go to a "Alcohol and Traffic" course which he pays for out of his own pocket (about $1,000,- yes, a thousand bucks) and takes a couple of days. If he chooses not to participate in the course he automatically looses his driving license (and stil has to pay the fine, off course)...

[RevBogovac]

Just now, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

It might be better than being part of the general prison population.  Sometimes, we want the best possible bad choice.

 

 

Then there is something wrong with the conditions in the first place. Doesn't condone cruelty in any shape, way or form...

[Dan56]

13 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

A drunk driver who kills someone -- or many -- should not pass Go.  There is a time to go directly to jail.  

 

 

5 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Why would anybody want any of those two options. Those are just cruel.

 

 

Cruel?  Tell that to the dead victims of the drunken driver.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Then there is something wrong with the conditions in the first place. Doesn't condone cruelty in any shape, way or form...

 

 

The current trend in America is privatization.  That includes, for profit prisons.  Humanity and justice are swept aside for profit.

 

On another note, repeat offenders are common in these matters.  If the only way to keep them off the roads is prison, then so be it.  The goal is not revenge.  The goal is to keep the roads and streets clear of drunk drivers.  If they will not be cured, they can be caged.  

 

Again, my emphasis on honesty.  What do we want from the legal system?  

Edited September 8, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

Cruel?  Tell that to the dead victims of the drunken driver.

 

 

Sometimes, the punishment should fit the crime.  A repeat drunk driver should be supplied with a limitless supply of vodka.  After he drinks himself to death, the problem is over.  So much cheaper than long term confinement.  The best part is, punishment is self administered.  

 

I do think this is consistent with what Rev. Cali advocated in this thread.

 

Again, if this is what we want, it requires radical honesty.

 

I know.  There are times when I blow my liberal credentials.  

 

Edited September 8, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[VonNoble]

 

Having done some ministry in more than one prison - my observation

(no facts to back it up - sometimes we see what we want to see) 

.....teaching another way to deal with life seemed far more effective

than rotting in a cell.

 

It was difficult getting a couple of tough guys to go through paperwork

to get GEDs however they were motivated by special perks if the did so.

And even more after earning their own GED - if they served as tutors for

others. 

 

In (18) months in a "lifer's prison"  those original two - taught ten more

enough to pass their GEDs as well. 

 

The warden rewarded all graduates with a grubstake to start their own

mail order business.  The money earned FIRST went to pay back the warden

for supplies   NEXT....they started paying a few pennies of their earnings

for rent.    NEXT the paid restitution...and as the business grew they 

eventually paid for rent, for their own Rx and so it went.  

 

We are talking LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE. ....but the incentives to do 

something for themselves sure seemed to make life much easier 

around the prison for everyone.....especially the cards...

 

Just an observation.  

 

To break this up (and get to the point of dignity there is a follow up notation) 

 

Von

[Rev. Calli]

4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Sometimes, the punishment should fit the crime.  A repeat drunk driver should be supplied with a limitless supply of vodka.  After he drinks himself to death, the problem is over.  So much cheaper than long term confinement.  The best part is, punishment is self administered.  

 

I do think this is consistent with what Rev. Cali advocated in this thread.

 

Again, if this is what we want, it requires radical honesty.

 

I know.  There are times when I blow my liberal credentials.  

 

 

Greetings to you my brother,

 

Not exactly.  My proposal is that prisons should be very agreeable places, where those who have proven that they cannot live in normal society be placed in the most humane setting possible because they will not be leaving it.  Most people thou, IMHO, can be rehabilitated outside of prison if we would devote our resources more to rehab than to punishment.  But we should also rethink what the behaviors are that should even be considered criminal.  Such as, oh I don't know, things like possession of Pot.

 

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

 

[Rev. Calli]

4 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

 

Having done some ministry in more than one prison - my observation

(no facts to back it up - sometimes we see what we want to see) 

.....teaching another way to deal with life seemed far more effective

than rotting in a cell.

 

It was difficult getting a couple of tough guys to go through paperwork

to get GEDs however they were motivated by special perks if the did so.

And even more after earning their own GED - if they served as tutors for

others. 

 

In (18) months in a "lifer's prison"  those original two - taught ten more

enough to pass their GEDs as well. 

 

The warden rewarded all graduates with a grubstake to start their own

mail order business.  The money earned FIRST went to pay back the warden

for supplies   NEXT....they started paying a few pennies of their earnings

for rent.    NEXT the paid restitution...and as the business grew they 

eventually paid for rent, for their own Rx and so it went.  

 

We are talking LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE. ....but the incentives to do 

something for themselves sure seemed to make life much easier 

around the prison for everyone.....especially the cards...

 

Just an observation.  

 

To break this up (and get to the point of dignity there is a follow up notation) 

 

Von

Greetings to you my brother,

 

Thank you for your very wise illustration of what can be possible when people are treated like people, even when they are being punished.

 

In solidarity, 

Rev. Calli

[VonNoble]

In 1962...many cars on the road did not have seatbelt.

My father installed them in our old station wagon to keep us safer. 

 

My father was a heavy drinker in those days. 

So were lots of people.

 

A drunk driver crossed the median on Highway 101 in California and hit 

my mom and dad's car - even wearing a seatbelt my mother went through the

windshield in one spot and came back through another spot. 

 

She was a mess and we prepared of her to die.    Nutshell of scope of her

injuries would be 31 stitches in one of her eyelids.   Her face was never

the same.  Most of her was never the same. 

 

At that time my parents had four children.  The driver that hit them had four children.

When they got to court....my mother took the stand.

 

She answered everything she was asked.

The judge then asked her if she wanted to add anything for him to consider. 

She told the judge:   " ....sometimes my husband has driven while drunk too

....the wife and kids of this man did nothing wrong.  To deprive them of a father

and wage earner would punish five people who never took a drink.  I could be

that wife and my kids could be her kids...please consider that, your honor

....I do not think him sitting in jail would do much for any of us...."

 

Like most  kids I am proud of my folks.  Especially of the fact no one was ever

beneath my mother's dignity radar.   She set a very good example for us. 

 

von

 

[Rev. Calli]

13 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Which is why anybody who "just" drinks an drives here (in the Netherlands) and gets caught - besides the obvious fine -  has to (mandatory) go to a "Alcohol and Traffic" course which he pays for out of his own pocket (about $1,000,- yes, a thousand bucks) and takes a couple of days. If he chooses not to participate in the course he automatically looses his driving license (and stil has to pay the fine, off course)...

Greetings to you my brother,

 

While each state in the US has different rules regarding driving while intoxicated, here in Wisconsin people convicted of a first offense has to do pretty much what you do in the Netherlands.  The cost is about the same too, with the additional consequence of having their drivers insurance premiums go sky high.

 

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

[VonNoble]

13 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Then there is something wrong with the conditions in the first place. Doesn't condone cruelty in any shape, way or form...

 

The most convincing argument for the approach used in the Netherlands is the fact it works.

I have not kept up in the last couple of years however when I was active in prison ministry 

the Netherlands were certainly cited for their many successes. 

 

von

[VonNoble]

8 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

Cruel?  Tell that to the dead victims of the drunken driver.

 

I see your point

 

I have held the hand of the dead victim's family at funerals. 

From car crashes, drug over doses, accidental gunshots and out

right cold blooded murder.

 

Interestingly enough - I don't think any of the family members at any 

of those funerals (more than ten years of them) ever expressed this

sentiment 

 

Maybe that was just unique to the people in our congregation.

 

von

[cuchulain]

There are serious problems with the whole punishment fitting the crime theory.  The biggest is the innocent who is found guilty anyway, in my view.  Perception by the public at large is that a person has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is true technically.  BUT...the big caveat here is that the courts determine what reasonable doubt is defined as in each particular type of crime.  There are some major crimes that can impact a persons life painfully for the rest of their life if they are convicted, in which reasonable doubt is actually defined as the jury believes the complaintant.  

Let that sink in a minute...a person can make a complaint, tell a good lie, and ruin someone else's life forever, based on testimony alone.

[Dan56]

On 9/8/2017 at 8:53 PM, VonNoble said:

 

 

 

She answered everything she was asked.

The judge then asked her if she wanted to add anything for him to consider. 

She told the judge:   " ....sometimes my husband has driven while drunk too

....the wife and kids of this man did nothing wrong.  To deprive them of a father

and wage earner would punish five people who never took a drink.  I could be

that wife and my kids could be her kids...please consider that, your honor

....I do not think him sitting in jail would do much for any of us...."

 

von

 

 

You left us hanging in suspense .. So what did the judge decide to do?

 

My sister was also hit by a drunk driver in Florida and was seriously injured, and her companion was killed.. The man that hit them had been busted 6 times for drunk driving, and was attending classes for his most previous DUI.. The drunk is finally serving time for manslaughter now.. I'm sure your Mom was a compassionate woman, but how would she feel if the judge had took her advise, only to learn later that the man she felt sorry for had later killed someone else while driving drunk?  Quite the conundrum eh?

[VonNoble]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

You left us hanging in suspense .. So what did the judge decide to do?

 

 I'm sure your Mom was a compassionate woman, but how would she feel if the judge had took her advise, only to learn later that the man she felt sorry for had later killed someone else while driving drunk?  Quite the conundrum eh?

 

* The judge said under normal circumstances he would have sent the man to jail.

However, the judge noted since my mother (who like your sister suffered permanently and forever because of his

actions) - since mom had asked that he NOT go to jail - the judge would honor her request.  He did NOT go to 

jail specifically because of my mothers opposition to it. 

 

*  Not sure if the drunk driver quit drinking...I sort of doubt it.  He did telephone my dad a couple months after the trial

to apologize for the damage caused.   His wife sent my mother a thank you card every year thereafter  My mother sent

the family a care package every Christmas - we didn't have much but they had less. 

 

* Although the drunk driver might not have quite driving drunk (again I do not know) but I DO KNOW...my father 

never took another drink.   He promised God and the world, on his knees in the hospital chapel  - if she lived (he was

told by the doctors she would not live the night)....dad promised IF she lived he would never drink again and he did not

 

* My father became a livelong advocate against drunk driving.   They entertained still and served alcohol but had guests

check in their car keys when they arrived

 

* Since more than one of my siblings ALSO battle (present) or battled (past tense as in they quit too) .....my mother, who 

was a very intelligent woman......she understood Alcoholism is a disease.   She addressed it as such and I don't think she 

would have accepted that jail cures anyone of a disease.    So my guess (she died in 1991)  - my guess is she would have

opposed still a sentence of jail time...even then...to treat  disease.   She was a pretty big believer in life unfolding as it 

is designed to unfold.....our job was - in her view - to master enough character to face whatever was coming with grace,

affording dignity....giving respect.    She CERTAINLY advocated there were far worse things in life than death. 

 

Dad might have been bargaining with God for her to stay.  

 

When she did die - when she knew she was dying she was fine with it.

She didn't want to die by any means.  But one of the last things she said to me was she did her best to 

do her job as a mom.  She believed she did that job to her own satisfaction and we would be okay.

She felt she left the world better by making sure each of the five kids could support ourselves.  And that

we be decent world citizens.  

 

They were the old couple in many ways - dad would have probably said anyone else killed was God's will. 

She would have kept true to the doesn't matter when your life ends...or how...it only matters HOW you 

live and who you helped along the way. Mother didn't believe in the notion of sin.   She felt we learn BY

making mistakes.   She often said - make new mistakes.   That way you know you are learning. 

 

von