Not so hard times

>Is minimum-security prison like summer camp effective?

Elliot Chan
Opinions Editor

 

at if I told you that
there are prisoners—
murderers—who were having
a better day than you? You
would be pretty upset, right?
And you aren't even the victim
or the victim’s family and
friends. For many, hearing that
criminals are having “easy”
times as a punishment is an
injustice. It’s almost as bad as
hearing that they got off free.
This is the case from a recent
report by Erin O’Toole, a Federal
Conservation public safety
critic. She went on to describe
a minimum-security prison in
BC as being akin to “summer
camp.” These prisons are fortified
with a recreation centre, tennis
courts, and baseball diamonds.
In addition, this prison is located
in arguably one of the most
beautiful regions of the province,
with mountain and ocean views.
Now, I know that prisons

are not meant to be inhumane

torture chambers, they are meant

to be more of a rehabilitation
centre, where the convict can
receive the necessary assistance
and treatment so that they may
be led back into normal society,
where they can contribute in a
meaningful way. Whether this
is happening more effectively
in a comfortable environment
is something the victims of the
prisoners’ crimes are extremely
skeptical and upset about.

The balancing act of trying
to find the punishment to fit the
crime is not an easy task. It takes

a lot of time, money, and effort to

make sure that the end result is
the “right” result. With the case
of summer camp prisons, many
believe that the criminals are
getting off too easily. Some are
even feeling that the prisoners
are in fact getting some sort of
luxury treatment. For murderers,
that type of punishment doesn’t
only make light of the heinous
act... it almost appears as though
the punishment encourages it.

There is a lot to like in our
country, but one must admit
that our justice system is still
full of holes. What we have is
often called a “revolving door”
criminal system, where criminals
go to jail for their crime, endure
the hospitable environment, and
return to normal society only to
recommit the crime. This type
of in-and-out prison—a lot like

What you really mean

> Finding ‘hidden meanings’ in everyday dialogue

Adam Tatelman
Arts Editor

 

n my online wanderings,

I’ve noticed a very annoying
trend among the avidly political
pseudo-intellectuals populating
social media—particularly the
Twitter, Tumblr, and Buzzfeed
subspecies. When engaged in
impassioned intercourse (of the
intellectual variety), a rather
common tactic is to accuse the
opponent of secretly harbouring
ill intent and subtly expressing
it as subtext. These accusations
are usually preceded by the
phrase “Here is what you actually
mean when you say that.”

I need not explain how
condescending such pedantry
is. Most people don’t talk to
children that way. If I walked
up to you on the street and said,
“Pfft, you're too stupid to know
your own thoughts. Let me tell
you what you actually think,” ’'d
excuse you for taking a swing at
me. You are, after all, a human
being with a mind of your own,
and | am not Professor X. Unless
and until you demonstrate
otherwise, | am going to assume

you mean what you say. That’s
called the benefit of the doubt.

Not presuming to know one
another’s innermost thoughts
seems like a no-brainer, yet many
millennials seem to share an
inclination towards assigning
heinous prejudice to entirely
benign sentiments. Case in point:
if 1 ask someone who has an
accent what country they’re from,
it’s not because | “don’t consider
them to be real Canadians.” It’s
because I’m curious to know
where they’re from. Rather
than assuming some hidden
meaning to my words, why not
let the person I’m speaking to
decide if they are offended or
not, and what to do about it?
Isn’t it more condescending to
get offended on their behalf?

In logic, this is known
as the fallacy of post hoc, or
“after the event.” This is usually
characterized by one party
assigning a cause to an effect
without providing any evidence
that this is true. Example:
“Lightning struck, and then I
farted. Therefore, I fart thunder.”

Obviously, this is an
absurd example, but this is to

highlight the illogical thought
process behind the conclusion.
The real fun begins when the
speaker goes on to insist that
every fart which comes from
their cheeks must be caused by
a lightning strike somewhere
in the world. Researchers call
this phenomenon apophenia,
the idea that the more you look
for something, the more of it
you will find—not necessarily
because it exists, but because
you are determined to see it.
Diversity is indeed great.
So great, in fact, that Douglas
College boasts one of the most
inclusive and representative
campuses in British Columbia,
complete with Aboriginal,
disabled, and LGBT support
groups. Nobody is being
excluded here. This is something
to be immensely proud of.
Intellectual diversity is also
important. No one political
ideology can possibly have the
answer to every issue, so don’t
restrict yourself by adhering to
a single stance. Avoid the trap
of lazy thinking when others
present you with a viewpoint you
hadn't previously considered,

(¥ Douglas Student Union elections bring record-break-

ing voter turnout

(¥ You, your pet, and climate change

(¥ People who people-rating apps

And more!

summer camp—does not solve
the bigger problem. It doesn’t

instill fear or teach repercussions.

It’s merely a pause button for
criminals. It stalls them from
the next crime, like summer
camp stalls us from our studies.
The punishment should
always fit the crime, but I ask
you this: Do the kids who get
detention every week really

even if you disagree. Don’t just
assume they are wrong or stupid.
If you do that, you might as well
just call them heretics. Read

 

learn from their poor decisions?
Probably not, they just become
acclimatized to the world they
live in. They never change; they
merely adapt. They accept that
detention is a part of their life.
Compared to many, it’s not
that bad of a life. To change
someone, you must really
change their environment, and
so it goes with murderers.

 

up on all sides of an issue—not
just the one you support. That’s
objectivity, and it'll help you
to better support your ideas.

Image via thinkstock