European constitution. Ya or Na?

[Dowland]

Allowing prisoners to sit back and watch TV and read porn just makes them idle and no less likely to reoffend.

I couldn't agree more. However, to be honest and cynical, *training* prisoners into productive members of society, to help them reinsert into society (and thus be much less likely to "reoffend") costs a LOT more money than installing a TV in their rooms. I imagine the porn is paid for by the prisoners (and I was under the impression you weren't going to wilfully spend one fifth of your hardly earned salary to train convicts---I probably wouldn't).

How is access to pornography a basic human right? It's a luxury item, and as such is a privilege, not a right.

I must say I was originally turned down by this line thought, because I thought you targeted only a certain "kind" of offensers. Now that I know that you do not, I personally have less objections, though objections I have nonetheless.

I don't believe porn is a luxury. Considering the convicts (theoritically) won't have sex for months, years, sometimes decades (especially in the case of pedophiles, BTW) ... how are they supposed to respond to their sexual needs? It's not because they're bad guys, that they don't have needs anymore, and sexuality can arguably be considered a basic need.

And what do you consider basic human rights? Could an isolation chamber represent basic human rights, according to you? And that begs the question, should we put all prisoners in isolations chambers? Better, should we put prisoners in those small cube cages, where there's no room to stand or sit, and you have to stay crouched for hours?

[Nacho]

I am thinking that I've been talking of porn assuming that it was pedophile porn. If it was not, maybe the level of sickness in front of that specific case is not so high as I guessed, my arguments fall down.

[Dowland]

Yes. Pedophilic porn is of course outlawed in all possible instances. And it was never question here whether it should be made legal or not.

[a small parenthesis : I'm going against what I've been saying here, but I'd say that regarding pedophilic porn, it's not always cut and clear ... I had a friend who's younger brother, when he was 14 (a couple years ago), shot himself with a webcam masturbating and penatrating himself with a pen and distributed it on a P2P network.

What is there to do? Are the people who downloaded the video guilty? Is the young brother guilty himself of distributing illegal pornography? Or is he judged incapable of discerning judgment? Perhaps the latter is an example in which common sense prevails over rules?]

[Pumaman]

However, to be honest and cynical, *training* prisoners into productive members of society, to help them reinsert into society (and thus be much less likely to "reoffend") costs a LOT more money than installing a TV in their rooms. I imagine the porn is paid for by the prisoners (and I was under the impression you weren't going to wilfully spend one fifth of your hardly earned salary to train convicts---I probably wouldn't).

It's true that the cost is higher. But, as it is keeping a prisoner in jail costs in the region of $50,000 per prisoner per year. The extra cost of giving them proper training and teaching would be relatively small compared to the overall cost of being there, but would in theory be worthwhile by the amount of crime it would prevent.
But that's a completely different argument.

I don't believe porn is a luxury. Considering the convicts (theoritically) won't have sex for months, years, sometimes decades (especially in the case of pedophiles, BTW) ... how are they supposed to respond to their sexual needs? It's not because they're bad guys, that they don't have needs anymore, and sexuality can arguably be considered a basic need.

They can always pleasure themselves without needing porn. I'm sure you could find loads of people who aren't in jail who haven't had sex in months/years and yet don't need porn.
Sure, you could argue that some people do need porn to satisfy themselves. But if that's the case, where do you stop? For some people, porn won't do it -- do you then have to provide them with prostitutes because they have the right to fulfil their sexual needs?

[Dowland]

where do you stop? For some people, porn won't do it -- do you then have to provide them with prostitutes because they have the right to fulfil their sexual needs?

Crap. I really brought that one onto me, didn't I 

[RickJ]

... BUT you cannot decide to strip such and such prisonner from such or such right...

I guess  I'm  a bit slow but it seems to me that incarceration itself denies one of the most basic of rights, to freely come and go as one pleases.   If I were given the choice I would prefer to give up porn rather than be incarcerated, as I suspect most people would. 

How can you justify stripping such an important right from individuals and and at the same time assert that the rights of the same individuals cannot be stripped when it comes to trivial matters.   It seems to me that , at least in coutries who laws are based upon Briytish Comon Law,  that convicted criminals  are in prision because they have deprived others of their rights and in doing so they have forfeited their rights.

Also I think re-habilitation is mostly touchy-feely crap.   Criminals for the most part commit crimes to make a living and serving some time is just the cost of doing business to them.  In the US a number of states passed "3 strikes and you're out" laws where three felony convictions gets you life without parole.   In those places the crime rate dropped significantly because it was the same gropup of people committing the crimes.  Once you start permantely taking them out of society the result is naturally less crime. 

Of course there are nut cases that don't have a profit motive but then they are are beyond rehabilitation any way and the sooner they are out of bussines the better. 

================
Back on topic.... EU Constitution from an outsider's point of view

1.  I was always skeptical because of the socialist leanings of most "old" European countries.   I didn't think it would take long for the realization to sink in that tax money would be, more or less permanently, flowing out of some countries and into others.   IMHO, socialism/collectivism/communism or whatever name you prefer does not scale very well much beyond a family grouping.  The larger the group the faster it fails.

2.  Also if there were going to be a central law making body, upon which country's law would the new laws be based?   Would they use British common law, the Napoleonic code, or some other tradition for their basis.   

3.  Also what language would such laws be written in?  Anyone who has ever negociated or executed a contract understands that every single word is important.  I can't see how laws could be flawlessly translated into a multitude of languages and  retain their percise meanings, which is of course a requirement.   Even if this were possible how would they be uniformily executed and interpreted in a multitude of cultures with a multitude of legal traditions? 

4.  From the outside looking in, it seems some of the wealthier countries such as France and Germany desire to increase their geo-policitcal and ecconomic power and more or less run things overthere.  Many countries less prosperous are eager to go along for the ride so as to reap the ecconomic benefits.    It seems to me the whole thing, a centralized European goverment,  is pretty much unworkable. 

5.  From the comments in this thread it would appear that the proposed constitution was severely flawed.   It seems that it was mainly about policy and not about fundamental principals.   Probaly it was purposefully vague so that nobody had to commit to anything ans so that people in different counttries could be told different things.

======
Anyway those are my thoughts from a relatively uninformed point of view.