They get letters

"A society should be judged not be how it treats its outstanding citizens, but by how it treats its criminals." -- Fyodor Dostoevsky

"Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was ... sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' "
-- Matthew 25:41-43

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
-- United States Constitution, Amendment VIII

The (Del.) News Journal gets letters:

I see a lot of talk about how Delaware is a horrid state for what it did, or didn't do, to its prisoners. I cannot believe you are in such an uproar over the death of a felon.

I am not a big fan of Ruth Ann Minner, but if this is how she runs things, good on her.

The guy was in prison, and not just for a first offense, but for violating parole. That means he got arrested, charged, convicted, and then basically didn't care enough to follow rules. Maybe prison needs to be this way.

Honestly, I could care less about you if you're in prison. It isn't supposed to be fun, easy or enjoyable. It's supposed to make you not want to come back. So if things like this happen, hey, don't break the law, and you won't have to worry about it.

Innocent people die every day, and yet you are worried about a felon like he is some kind of saint? I don't care what excuse you have for burglary, at 21, you don't need to do it. You can always find a job. McDonald's is always hiring, the military is always hiring, so they aren't excuses. Any one who pities this man, or anyone else in prison is sick.

J.G., Newark

They've gotten a lot of letters like that one ever since they published "Delaware's Deadly Prisons," a four-part investigative series on the inadequate medical care provided in Delaware's prisons, by reporters Esteban Parra and Lee Williams.

The attitude expressed in such letters is as popular as it is morally repugnant. This popularity is both dismaying and baffling. Letters like this express contempt for the Constitution as though such contempt were patriotic -- as though the Bill of Rights were some kind of threat to the American way of life.

The gleeful depravity of such letters recalls the widespread "patriotic" defense of the abuse of detainees in Guantanamo and Baghram and Abu Ghraib. All this in a country where 9 out of 10 people say they believe in God.

I expect I'll have more to say on this later, but for now I'm still pretty much in the muttering and shaking my head phase. I expect stupidity and evil -- that's human nature. But boastfully enthusiastic stupidity and evil sometimes leaves me at a loss for words.

Comments

[LisaJulie Peoples]

But that's because the general mass of people in the United States of America assume that if you are arrested, you are guilty.

After that, what happens to you, is what you deserve.

Rivka at Respectful of Otters on September 21, 2005, has cogent comments about this sensibility.

[Kim]

Fred -- Here are some URLs to two articles that may explain what is going on.
The first article is Satanism is Alive and Well, and within the article are links to the second article, Christians in the Hands of an Angry God, which is in five parts. Here are URLs to all six:

http://lightningbug.blogspot.com/2004_12_26_lightningbug_archive.html#110461436308699647

J. Brad Hicks
http://www.livejournal.com/users/bradhicks/118585.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/bradhicks/118805.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/bradhicks/119283.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/bradhicks/119661.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/bradhicks/119950.html

I really recommend reading these.

[Lila]

I guess these people think that when we Christians "visit the prisoners" we are supposed to slap them around or spit on them or something.

By the way, Fred, "-- as though the Bill of Rights were some kind of threat to the American way of life" is the best capsule description I've heard of what is wrong with the current administration and its followers.

[Natalie]

Not all of us in Delaware feel that way.

Then again, I also don't read the News-Journal (because it's a crap paper), so I was unaware that they had a series on the deplorable condition of our prisons--which I was vaguely aware of; I'll read the articles when I have a bit more time on my hands. They almost always print the most imflammatory letters they receive--I belong to a local progressive group and we (but not me personally because I tend to sputter incoherently) send letters to the paper regularly and we rarely get published. Once in a while we do, but not with the frequency of the raging nutjobs.

So please, please, please don't paint everyone in Delaware as gleeful nutjobs who think people who are convicted of crimes should be treated worse than vermin. There are a lot of good and decent people here.

[Sophist]

Any one who pities this man, or anyone else in prison is sick.

I am embarrassed to share a country with this...individual.

Hell, I'm embarrasses to share a species. That a thinking, feeling, apparently rational person could say this, could be proud of saying this...I honestly fear for the human race.

[Scott]

Ralph Waldo Emerson prophesied that the boasts of nineteenth-century civilization would one day be cited as proof of its barbarity.

I can't find the original quote, but thought it appropriate anyway.

[bellatrys]

It is still uncertain if or how many of some 500 prisoners in the lockup in New Orleans - that is, people who had been arrested, but not convicted of anything, just in holding cells many or most of them - drowned or were saved. There is no question that at this particular jail, the prisoners were abandoned while the water was rising. There is a lot of contradictory statements going on and the officials have clammed up.

The response, even from some "liberals", was why should we care about criminals when so many innocent people drowned? I tried to point out that this means they're okay with them or their family being locked in to die if they get picked up DWI or for protesting or Walking While Black, but I'm not sure I made any dent in the sociopathy walls.

[catholic_girl]

The "Letters to the Editor" page is always where I go when I feel like losing my remaining faith in humanity.

[syfr]

aiyeee!

If you "could care less," then you care! This person is saying the exact opposite of what they mean. Which would be good, if they meant what they said.

[Edward Liu]

Forget about being locked in to die for being DWI or whatever -- how about getting arrested (if not tried and convicted) for just plain being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or perhaps you're unlucky enough to live in a town where a corrupt cop looking to burnish his arrest record is ready, willing, and able to arrest dozens of people on drug-related charges with no evidence whatsoever and get named Lawman of the Year for it. Or have these people never heard of Tula, Oklahoma? (Actually, judging by an utterly fruitless Google search, they may not have since I can't even find a hyperlink to talk about the case from a few years ago that I only knew about through Bob Herbert's editorials.)

Perhaps a better tack for denting those walls of sociopathy would be to ask, "So are you 100% guaranteed that there are never any wrongful arrests anywhere ever?" I doubt it would help much, since the mindset that allows for that kind of thinking is also hellbent on the idea that "I don't have to worry about being arrested wrongfully because I don't do anything wrong."

Edward,

It's Tulia, TX. This link might help:
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_tulia.html
I really wonder about J.G. (the LTE author). How does he or she act in real life towards other people? It's one thing to write some crackpot letter, but another to pose like a tough guy.

[Edward Liu]

I KNEW I must have been doing something wrong. Thanks...er, anonymous poster!

[kim]

I had an exchange with someone on a conservative Christian blog about treatment of prisoners and this person actually brought up the subject of prison rape to illustrate that criminals get what they deserve. I never thought I'd have to explain to a fellow Christian that rape is not an appropriate punishment for any crime in this country.

[Lucia]

With regard to wrongful arrests and/or convictions, Helen Prejean had the best comment I've ever seen (although she was talking specifically about the death penalty): these are the same government and the same people that can't even do a decent job of fixing roads, and you trust them to dispense justice?

Just curious, Kim: which blog? (Just wondering if it's the same crew of freepers I recently decided to stop beating my head against, or different crew, same wall.)

[Michael "Vendor X" Heaney]

This may seem only marginally related, at first, but I would like to draw attention to this article about new Florida gun laws.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050929/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleflorida_050929191421

Most notable, I think, is this line, “Critics say the current law allows gun owners to shoot if they engage in a simple argument. Supporters say that criminals will think twice when they try to attack someone in public.”

To me, what this illustrates is the notion of a ‘citizen’ vs. a ‘criminal’. If you have two people in an altercation, and one, feeling threatened, shoots the other then who, exactly, was threatening who? What makes this scenario more favorable than the other person getting in the first shot. What benefit to social order or ethical standards was maintained? None, unless you have constructed in your mind the notion of a ‘criminal’ being something other than another human being.

And that’s exactly what has happened, in relation to prisons, in relation to Florida gun law. Most U.S. citizens, regardless of their supposed political or social leanings, view the ‘criminal’ not as a human being or a fellow citizen, but literally as some abstract boogums which threatens their lives, property and ideals. If the prevailing attitude towards how to treat prisoners seems horrific or inhumane, it’s because people literally do not consider prisoners humans.

Rather like a man who beats his spouse, having come to envision her as the symbol of all his aggravations, so does the modern ‘civilized’ person tend to strive to punish ‘criminals,’ without thinking for a second as to the nature of the crime they committed, the possibility of their innocence or the social benefits or repercussions of stripping away their humanity or the associated rights. It’s not merely lazy thinking, it’s honestly a form of irrational violence, no different in its motive than physically attacking minorities or beating your wife, excepting that it’s ‘legal’, so people can ‘get away with it’. The eagerness with which so many seek to inflict misery and harm upon others they know nothing about, based on only the most meager media data regarding some possible crime or another (if that,) illustrates Dostoevsky’s point beautifully. Socially, we’re backpedaling rapidly, with our understanding and appreciation of human rights and freedoms collapsing back into irrational and personalized applications of instinct and emotion.

[bulbul]

I expect stupidity and evil -- that's human nature.
Amen, brother

But boastfully enthusiastic stupidity and evil sometimes leaves me at a loss for words.
"Boastfully enthusiastic stupidity" had undergone rebranding. Now it's called "keepin' it real", "looking out for number one" and similar.

[bulbul]

" has undergone ".
Sorry.

[kim]

Lucia, it's ThinkChristian.net. I am a contributor there and consider myself one of a few token liberals. The other contributors are conservative (and thoughtful about it), but many of the commenters unfortunately fit the stereotype of conservative Christians that you're familiar with.

[Mabus]

The standard line I grew up with, in my conservative church, was simply that Roman prisons were more akin to Soviet gulags, in that they held a great many political prisoners. Though there were ordinary criminals in lockup, of course, a substantial group of people were there for opposing the Roman occupation (and later, for being Christians). Therefore these people, who had (sometimes) done nothing particularly wrong, were especially deserving of compassion--while the thieves and murderers also imprisoned there were not.

I actually agree with you guys, cognitively anyway (my emotions are screaming, "Let the *@&!(#% die!"; now you know why I ignore them). But you need to understand that conservatives believe they're the ones being compassionate where prisons are concerned. "Granted," says the conservative, "a few innocent people get imprisoned every now and then, but most of the prisoners are guilty. Liberals want to slap them on the wrist and let them go free, so that they can return to the business of stealing, raping, and murdering. We want to see them punished as they deserve. Every now and then we'll get the wrong person, and that's bad, but it's better that a few innocents be hurt than many innocents."

You may think this is a pile of shite, but saying as much, in that way, only provokes more of the same, with added hysteria. Heck, it was my gut reaction, and half the reason I was able to hold it in was that I knew the kind of response it'd get here. It's not a sleazy, self-interested calculation; you are dealing with people who are deathly afraid that your response to criminals will get the rest of us robbed or killed. Want a different reaction? Reassure them. Offer them some of the compassion you're always talking about. Slam them, and you only reinforce their fears about you.

We want to see them punished as they deserve.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged." "Vengeance is mine, saith the LORD." According to Jesus, the first person to set foot into Heaven after Him was a criminal, and Jesus Himself is the most famous example in all the world of a man falsely accused and punished for a crime He did not commit.

I wonder how many of the people shouting now would have left Him to drown without a qualm?

[cjmr]

This article reminds me of a case we have going on in the DC area right now, in which a quadriplegic man was given a 10-day jail sentence for possesion of marijuana--about 2 cigarettes worth. He died in jail on the 4th or 5th day--mostly because they didn't have a ventilator in the jail to help him breathe. And the judge knew that when she sentenced him. His mom has now filed a wrongful death suit against the prison and the city.

[Mnemosyne]

It's not a sleazy, self-interested calculation; you are dealing with people who are deathly afraid that your response to criminals will get the rest of us robbed or killed. Want a different reaction? Reassure them.

Reassure them how? We tell them that crime rates keep dropping every year, and it doesn't matter. We tell them that many studies show that recidivism by inmates is vastly reduced when they have access to education and therapy, and they don't listen.

The way we treat criminals now isn't only wrong, it's not working. But people would rather hear that the scary, scary other has been locked away for life than hear about a man who turned his life around with the education and therapy he got in prison.

To make things worse, a significant percentage of the population in prisons and jails is mentally ill. There were protests in the 1970s that we were "warehousing" mentally ill people in psychiatric hospitals. Now we warehouse them in prisons and jails and nobody cares anymore, because they're "criminals."

[Ray]

"We want to see them punished as they deserve."

This is the problem. Its not just a matter of wanting to see criminals locked up so that they can't rob and rape again. Its the desire for punishment. Don't just lock them up, put them on chain-gangs! Don't molly-coddle them with education and humane treatment - cage them up like animals! Hit them. Hurt them. Hate them.

There is no compassion in this, just blood-lust.

[Scott]

Its not just a matter of wanting to see criminals locked up so that they can't rob and rape again. Its the desire for punishment. Don't just lock them up, put them on chain-gangs! Don't molly-coddle them with education and humane treatment - cage them up like animals! Hit them. Hurt them. Hate them.

There is no compassion in this, just blood-lust.

"I would love to personally escort [Enron Corp. Chairman Kenneth] Lay to an 8-by-10 cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who says, 'Hi, my name is Spike, honey.'"
-- Compassionate California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, advocating prison rape

[cjmr's husband]

Ah, the old "prison rape as a deterrent" line of reasoning. Every bit as effective as the "death penalty as a deterrent" line of reasoning -- not at all.

When are people going to learn that deterrents don't work on people who *know* they won't get caught?

(I support a fairly administered death penalty, but not because it is a deterrent. It's too bad ours isn't fairly administered. Or administered to those who perform "vigilante justice" and administer it themselves...)

Was Lockyer's comment "wrong"? Yes. But so was Lay's alleged criminial behaviour, and it was well understood at the time that Lay would not be meeting Spike any time soon. He still hasn't. Odd, that.

Back on topic:

Should prison be a punishment? Yes, but that should not be its sole purpose. Prisoners should be released with the (1) desire and (2) ability to reenter society, and (C) the will to not go back. I suggest that preventing them from committing crimes while actually in the prison might help this a bit. (yes, prison rape is a crime)

I also suggest that, given the right to an education that every child in this country has (yes, Scott, I know it's not in the Constitution) that anyone who enters prison without a high school diploma should not be released until they have a GED. This would be punishment enough for some of them...

And now I will leave the rest of the discussion to the experts.

[Scott]

Was Lockyer's comment "wrong"? Yes. But so was Lay's alleged criminial behaviour

Rape is worse than what Lay was accused of - you can't compare them like that just to dismiss leftists sounding like conservatives. That' just saying "who cares, they're criminals", which is what was originally being condemned.

[Ray]

I'm happy to condemn both - rape is not an appropriate criminal sentence.

[Scott]

I'm happy to condemn both - rape is not an appropriate criminal sentence.

That's fine - it's not an either/or.

Lockyer, as the elected official in CA ultimately responsible for stopping rapes in its prisons carries more weight than one powerless blowhard writing a letter to the editor. The letter seems to have touched off a wave of "see how moral we are to oppose them", but Lockyer's comment was merely "wrong" (CH's quotes), despite Lockyer being a powerful elected official. You don't suppose that's because Lockyer is a Democrat, do you?

[Ray]

I think its more likely to do with the belief most people have that Ken Lay wasn't going to get anywhere near sharing a cell with a guy called Spike, while the letter to the paper was in response to actual, reported incidents of prison deaths.

[Scott]

I think its more likely to do with the belief most people have that Ken Lay wasn't going to get anywhere near sharing a cell with a guy called Spike,

Ah, yes, the "I was just kidding" defense. Can conservatives use that too, or do you have to prove your morality by being a progressive before earning the benefit of the doubt like that? Lockyer was the f'ing Atty General when he made his little 'joke'.

[Scott]

close tag

[Scott]

try to close again

[Ray]

Was Ken Lay in one of his prisons when he made the 'joke'?
I understand how you want to say that the right and left are just as bad as each other and all, but you'd be better off trying to find an example where someone on the left reacted to something that had happened, just like the person on the right, quoted above, was reacting to something that had happened. Because when someone is speaking about things that they would like to see happen in the future, its easy to believe that they are using hyperbole.

[Scott]

Was Ken Lay in one of his prisons when he made the 'joke'?

Lay hadn't even been charged at the time - making Lockyer's comments all the worse as a LEO. Innocent until proven guilty and all.

[Scott]

Because when someone is speaking about things that they would like to see happen in the future, its easy to believe that they are using hyperbole.

Lockyer's comment would only be hypothetical if there was no rape going on in CA prisons.

[Ray]

If Ken Lay wasn't in prison, and hadn't been raped, then saying Ken Lay should be raped in prison is speaking about a hypothetical future, not an actual past. So we're back to the possibility of hyperbole.

[Scott]

If Ken Lay wasn't in prison, and hadn't been raped, then saying Ken Lay should be raped in prison is speaking about a hypothetical future, not an actual past. So we're back to the possibility of hyperbole.

A Democrat was making a prison rape 'joke' while rapes were going on in his prisons, saying someone deserved the same treatment. That's not purely hypothetical, and therefore no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt concerning hyperbole. A Republican would have been thought to have meant it and been treated accordingly. Rush Limbaugh would have been taken literally if he said something similar (or when he said something similar).

[Ray]

Jesus, Scott, I give in okay? Democrats are evil too! Everything bad that was ever done by a Republican has also been done by a Democrat! And if we can't find something exactly the same, that doesn't matter, because we can find something else that's evil, in a similar way, and why should we be so fussy about evil anyway?

Happy?

[Ray]

It worked!
I'll have to save that post, I may need it again.

[Michael "Vendor X" Heaney]

Scott's "it's all the same" arguments rest solely on comparing the exception on one side to the rule on another.

Do both sides have problems? Yes. But to claim they are equals requires that virtually all relevant facts be ignored. I have liberal friends who have that bloodlust against convicted criminals, that desire to punish, to inflict suffering back 'just coz', but this minority of irrational humans doesn't alter the distinct difference between an ideology which promotes abandoning capital punishment from an ideology which applauds a system which murders people they know nothing about, just because their demonstrably error prone state leaders condone it. It doesn't change the fact that a majority of liberal leaders work to end capital punishment, work to focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment, and work to remind others that being a criminal doesn't mean you're not still a human with human rights. Conservatives, by and large, do just the opposite. So when Scott finds a liberal here or there who, when quoted, manages to sound like most conservatives, it doesn't result in the two sides being 'equal'. Comparing the exception on one side to the rule on the other is not an equal comparison, and that ought to be obvious to anyone.

[Scott]

Scott's "it's all the same" arguments rest solely on comparing the exception on one side to the rule on another.

Lockyer wasn't hounded from office by liberal Democrats, was he?

It doesn't change the fact that a majority of liberal leaders work to end capital punishment

That's just special pleading - 'my' side is less immoral because 'my' ideology is more moral so we deserve extra slack.

[Scott]

and work to remind others that being a criminal doesn't mean you're not still a human with human rights.

Liberals and conservatives just differ on their choice of 'criminals'. The hatred behind Lockyer's words isn't out of character for the left in talking about a class enemy, outside the guilt or innocence of any specific person. Say "the real crime is not paying the minimum wage" (or offering health benefits), and liberal hatred toward 'criminals' as subhuman matches that of any conservative. Read the other threads here and see how often commenters say "the rich" to this or that evil thing as some unhuman blob of enemies with their own goals and values that may just differ from the commenter's.

[Scott]

as some unhuman blob of enemies with their own goals and values that may just differ from the commenter's.

Should have read:

as some unhuman blob of enemies instead of simply being other people with their own goals and values that may just differ from the commenter's.

[Michael "Vendor X" Heaney]

Most politicians aren't hounded from office for violent or cruel attitudes towards criminals. That Lockyer wasn't hounded out of office, then, is merely status quo, not some special liberal agenda or favoratism.

And this line :

That's just special pleading - 'my' side is less immoral because 'my' ideology is more moral so we deserve extra slack.

is such a drastic misrepresentation of what my statements (my comment stating that the difference was based on actions and ideology both in relation to weight of numbers, not ideology along, as well as never once advocating 'more slack' for liberals) that your honesty or your literacy must be called into question. When someone makes an argument, Scott, it's your duty to assess the entire argument, not merely to pick out the lines which are your favorites and then reword them to suit your purposes.

Liberals and conservatives DON'T just 'differ on their choice of criminal.' The question from the beginning was not merely who was a criminal, but how they were treated. That you ignore this fundamental point to the debate at hand once again shows that you're willing to ignore even the most basic and obvious aspects of any discussion.

Both liberals and conservatives reacted with passion and anger after 9/11. However, it was liberals who realized that imprisoning people without accusing them of crimes was wrong, that torturing people convicted of crimes was wrong. Liberals have spoken out against, rallied against and even taken legal action against our government for these clear violations. They've done so in such large numbers compared to conservatives, who have for the most part supported both of the above behaviors or denied, against all evidence, that such exist, that once again, the distinction is clear. One quote by lockyer and some baseless claims that all liberals blindly ignore him because he's one of them don't change this demonstrable difference between liberals and conservatives, and it's a damned site more than just 'ideology'.

[Scott]

Most politicians aren't hounded from office for violent or cruel attitudes towards criminals.

Should the left demand the removal from office of anyone who considers prison rape a laughing matter, particularly if they're in law enforcement?

my comment stating that the difference was based on actions and ideology both in relation to weight of numbers, not ideology along, as well as never once advocating 'more slack' for liberals

Your pointing out leftist ideological beliefs as mitigation for the same beliefs and attitudes toward criminals is advocating 'more slack' for liberals. Whether you call that "ideology alone" because you give slack based on ideology or "ideology and actions" because you're giving slack concerning actions because of ideology doesn't matter.

Liberals and conservatives DON'T just 'differ on their choice of criminal.' The question from the beginning was not merely who was a criminal, but how they were treated. That you ignore this fundamental point to the debate at hand once again shows that you're willing to ignore even the most basic and obvious aspects of any discussion.

No, I hear the same venom toward those thought by the left to be 'criminals' that the right has toward convicted rapists and murderers, and Lockyer's quote goes right to how they are treated (he made light of a wrong it was his responsibility, as Atty General, to prevent).

However, it was liberals who realized that imprisoning people without accusing them of crimes was wrong, that torturing people convicted of crimes was wrong.

Many anti-govt libertarians did so also, and good liberals like Alan Dershowitz didn't.

[Scott]

And liberals don't have a monopoly on being on the right side of the prison rape issue:

In July Congress passed the first federal legislation to curb sexual assault in the nation's prisons and jails—a problem that appears to be worsening. Scholars estimate that as many as 400,000 inmates, the vast majority of them men, have been sexually assaulted at least once....

...Christian groups played a key role in passing the legislation. "Evangelicals have very much been at the core of support for this," said Mark L. Earley, the president and CEO of Prison Fellowship Ministries. "I think anybody concerned about the sanctity of human life is concerned."

Supporters of S. 1435 include the National Association of Evangelicals, the Christian Coalition, the Salvation Army, and the Southern Baptist Convention. ...

And see this from Charles Colson, who otherwise is the antiChrist, IMHO.

[Ray]

Its worth noting that neither the original post nor any of the comments suggest that the attitude being criticised is exclusive to Republicans while Democrats are all above reproach. Few of the comments (before Scott) even mention the words 'liberal' or 'conservative', and nobody suggests that all people who are liberal (in other ways) have a good attitude to criminals, while all people who are conservative (in other ways) have a bad attitude. (Though the correlation is high enough to justify calling one 'the conservative attitude' and the other 'the liberal attitude')

So what, exactly, is accomplished by demonstrating that there are some Democrats, presumably 'liberal' in other ways, that have a bad attitude to criminals? Nobody has suggested that the problem would be solved if all Republican officials were replaced by Democratic officials overnight, so Lockyer is a rebuttal of an argument that hasn't been advanced.

The only purpose of bringing up Lockyer is for Scott to be able to say "Look, Democrats and Republicans are exactly alike!", which is both irrelevant and innacurate. Inaccurate because, as Michael Heaney points out, comparing an exception to a standard is transparently bad reasoning. Irrelevant because the purpose of the post and comments up to then was to criticise an attitude, not to identify it with a particular US political party.

Should the left demand the removal from office of anyone who considers prison rape a laughing matter, particularly if they're in law enforcement?

If Lockyer was handed a report on rape in the prisons he was responsible for and started making jokes about it, that would be much, much more serious. He didn't do that. (I'm not going to bother arguing about this point any more. I think I can safely assume that everyone else reading this can see a difference between the two situations, and I remember that you refused to admit the direction of time's arrow when it caused problems for a previous argument so I'm sure you can keep disagreeing with me on this long past the point of tedium)

I hear the same venom toward those thought by the left to be 'criminals' that the right has toward convicted rapists and murderers, and Lockyer's quote goes right to how they are treated

I haven't seen anyone else calling for rape as a part of the penal code. If you can point to examples of people on here criticising the treatment of prisoners while also calling for that same treatment to be meted out to other types of criminal, do it. Otherwise you have absolutely no grounds to suggest the people here complaining about the treatment of criminals are hypocrites, and you owe them an apology.

[Scott]

(Though the correlation is high enough to justify calling one 'the conservative attitude' and the other 'the liberal attitude')...Otherwise you have absolutely no grounds to suggest the people here complaining about the treatment of criminals are hypocrites, and you owe them an apology.

Your comment in parens nullifies your demand for an apology. Any liberal who complains about "the conservative attitude" but yawns at a Democrat like Lockyer is a hypocrite.

I haven't seen anyone else calling for rape as a part of the penal code.

As this would involve rapes in the future, your snark about "time's arrow" no longer applies, and Lockyer's comment goes right to this.

If Lockyer was handed a report on rape in the prisons he was responsible for and started making jokes about it, that would be much, much more serious.

Only true if Lockyer was totally ignorant of any abuses in CA's prison system and the report was how he found out that what he was joking about actually happens to people.

Inaccurate because, as Michael Heaney points out, comparing an exception to a standard is transparently bad reasoning

Read my earlier post about the anti-rape law about supporting rape being a 'conservative' standard. You contradict yourself saying nobody thinks 'all' conservatives believe that, but then calling it a 'conservative' standard when you need it to be to feel good about yourself.

[Michael "Vendor X" Heaney]

Your pointing out leftist ideological beliefs as mitigation for the same beliefs and attitudes toward criminals is advocating 'more slack' for liberals. Whether you call that "ideology alone" because you give slack based on ideology or "ideology and actions" because you're giving slack concerning actions because of ideology doesn't matter.

I never pointed out leftist beliefs as 'mitigation' for some shared belief towards criminals. That's a claim you falsely attributed to me, along with liberals in general. You're blatantly and intentionally misrepresenting those you disagree with, Scott.

As Ray points out, the issue is with the attitude. If Lockrey has a dehumanizing attitude towards prisoners then he is every bit as condemnable as anyone else who shares that attitude, regardless of political or social affiliation. The point I'm making is that your argument (that a single quote is somehow all the evidence you need to show that varying ideologies and affiliations are equal in their beliefs and practices,) is both demonstrably in error as well as ridiculously sloppy.

What I did was point out that a vast majority of liberals do not share beliefs with a vast majority of conservatives, therefore there is an obvious difference between the two. I then showed, using the 9/11 example, how those beliefs play into notable differences in behavior, both social and political. This is the very obvious and relevant argument AND evidence that you continue to pretend doesn't exist.

[Ray]

You don't think there is a high correlation between being conservative on other issues and wanting to see criminals 'punished', and being liberal on other issues and wanting to see the rights of criminals respected. Since one of these attitudes will inevitable be labelled 'liberal' and the other 'conservative', do you seriously think the labelling should be the other way around? Do you actually think you're convincing anyone, or do you not care as long as you don't have to shift from your position that all non-libertarians are identical?