I find myself agreeing with Scott. It seems government is becoming more like the old rule of religion rather than the representatives of an enlightened age.Does Society Need Prisons?
by Scott Hughes
Millions of people in the world currently rot in jails or prisons. People think of jails and prisons as an essential part of society, but do we really need them? Do prisons really protect people from violence and victimization, or do prisons just make matters worse? Let's look at the different types of criminals that governments throw in prison.
Non-violent non-victimizers - Governments have a tendency to criminalize behaviors that do not hurt anyone. The governments create victimless crimes by creating authoritarian laws. When people break these laws, they have not hurt anyone in any major way. These laws can include any laws outlawing victimless behaviors, such as drug possession, prostitution, peacefully practicing a religion, and so on and so forth. For example, the United States currently has over 1 million people behind bars for victimless crimes, which only limits freedom and does not protect others. Instead of putting these non-violent people in jail or prison, we can just let them go and legalize all victimless behaviors. It makes more sense to let people have freedom than to waste resources enforcing authoritarian laws.
There are certain "victimless crimes" which are more distasteful than others but no-matter what the crime - if it has not created a victim, then I believe the government exhibits a kind of moral arrogance by imprisoning these people. I am specifically using Chris Langham as an example. Here we have a man imprisoned for looking at the wrong kind of images but who created no victims. I think most people will know the details. I have provided a couple of links to articles which endorse the idea that there has been an over-reaction to his activities which should not have resulted in his imprisonment.
Personally I would make a proviso here which I think perhaps should be considered as an act which does create a victim or at least, endorses the act of creating a victim. That act is in the purchasing of images of this nature. I believe the proviso to be valid because providing money for this material must surely encourage and sustain its production. In that sense the purchaser physically supports the actions of those who do create victims and must therefore be culpable.
In the cases of those who have merely looked but not purchased, I find myself confronted with the arrogance of government which is basically telling the public what we may or may not look at.
At first, given the nature of the images in question, it might seem justifiable to imprison the observer, but what is the difference between telling us that we may not look at images of 'x' subject and later being told we may not speak of 'y' subject?
I think it brings us a step closer to Orwell's predicted 'Thought Police'.
There are already other examples of things we must not look at. Just wander around London with a video camera for a while and sooner or later the police will ask you if you have permission to film a certain building etc. And yet, for "your safety" the government can film you (look at) any time it wants to using cctv.
Here are those links:
Whoops! It would seem I have just come up against another rule which needs questioning. Apparently I can't provide links until I have posted five times.
Sorry.
I will have to get back to you later with the links.