|
| Posted by: Khahan
- [391582715] Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 13:04
The Ft Hood thread has been hijacked by the recent murderer in Seattle.
Points to consider:
Should any blame be put on the government or specific politicians who put this guy out on the street after he received an 108 year prison sentence?
Is prison overcrowing truly a problem?
What ideas to make our prison and legal system more of a deterrant to crime.
A few rules:
Keep it civil. Name calling and personal attacks will not be tolerated. In fact they will be edited out or have the entire post removed.
Support your arguments. If you are going to give us stats, provide a link or indicate where your stats came from.
Keep it on topic. |
| | | 1 | Khahan
ID: 391582715
Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 13:35
|
As I give thought to many of the questions asked above one central theme keeps popping up that will have a major affect on how people will answer them:
What do you think the rights of prisoners should be?
To this end, it may be more productive to answer this question first.
Keeping in mind a person is not a prisoner until conviction and sentencing, its my personal belief that prisoners should have diminished rights. I do not think a prisoner has the right to live in comfort and have access to as much as they have.
A clean place to sleep, 3 square meals a day, clean bathroom facilities. Beyond that there should be a lot of quiet contemplation time. There should be the ability to expand themselves, physically, spiritually and mentally although the means to this are up for debate in my mind.
If they have stack 4 or 5 prisoners in a cell on bunks, as long as they have a place they can lay flat to sleep, its enough for me.
Are they entitled to weights? Not if my tax money is paying for it. An area to jog, a place to do push ups and pull ups and sit ups. It may take longer to get a full routine in without weights, but then again, inmates have plenty of time.
They want to expand their minds? Let them read books. They want to practice their religion? Let them practice but don't think my tax money is providing a chapel, mosque or temple area.
These are just some examples of what I think is wrong and how I think it should be. But many of the problems posed in this thread and brought up in the Ft Hood thread all come back to prisoners rights. At this point in our history, I think prisoners have done nothing but abuse our country to avoid the whole purpose of prison. Punishment.
|
|
| | | 2 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 13:52
|
Do you think we, a society, would benefit from attempting to actually rehabilitate prisoners, or simply vindictively punish them?
Which method do you think is better for society when these prisoners are released back into society (which the vast majority eventually are)?
|
|
| | | 3 | Khahan
ID: 391582715
Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 14:05
|
I think it depends on the prisoner and the crime. Notice I never said they should not have avenues of rehabilitation.
But a muderer or a rapist who is going to be in for life? Do you really think we should spend any time rehabiliting that person? I don't.
Some street punk or mugged a few people or threatened somebody with a knife, sure. Take all the funds you are saving by not buying and maintaining a weight room or state of the art entertainment and put it into a library. Give them avenues to learn and grow. Give them jobs while they are in prison and pay them for the work they do, but that money isn't accessable until their release.
If they want additional education or job training, let them have it. To me, those are avenues that help an individual grow mentally.
|
|
| | | 4 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 14:43
|
To your list of prisoners rights I would add the right to be safe (within normal reason) from physical harm from other prisoners. Which makes the 4-5 to a cell issue problematic.
I do agree with some of your points, though I suspect that we end up with slightly differing outcomes that won't bother either of us very much (e.g. I don't much care if the prison has a weight room or not).
One of the major problems with our current prison system in general is that prison is basically a one-size-fits-all punishment for a wide variety of crimes, and that isn't appropriate at all in many cases.
Violent offenders? I really don't care what you do with them. You can drop off the murderers and rapists on a barbed-wire-encaged Alcatraz and let them fend for themselves for all I care.
But with our current system, the murderer gets punished in the same way as the fifth-level drug mule and the guy who broke into Best Buy at 2:00 AM and took a TV. If the only way to calibrate punishment is "how long", we're not going to accomplish much.
The point of the criminal justice system is to protect society from criminals, right? In the long term, rehabilitating (whatever that entails) most of the current prison population seems better than pure punishment. I think that prison is plenty of deterrent in its present state, and that wouldn't change a great deal if we move to a more rehabilitative approach in general. It's not like your average pickpocket or Best-Buy-TV-robber is going to suddenly be afraid of doing what they do because the state pen doesn't have movie night on Saturdays.
|
|
| | |
| | | 6 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 16:53
|
Do you think we, a society, would benefit from attempting to actually rehabilitate prisoners, or simply vindictively punish them?
to me, a major flaw of our criminal justice system is that it has become all about punishment, and not at all about rehabilitation.
sure, the Jeffrey Dahmers and Ted Bundys of the world are not likely to be rehabilitated. And sure, the guy who has a rap sheet 20 charges long is not likely to be rehabilitated.
in the cases of the former, i think, simply, you separate those guys out from other prisoners - let them have their own prisons.
in the cases of the latter, i think many of those cases are guys who are products of the system - punished, but never offered rehabilitation.
i've also heard (anecdotal, as i have no statistical evidence) that many people who served in prison commit a crime just so they can return, for a variety of reasons, from not really knowing how to cope "on the outside", to not being able to find work because of their criminal background.
the entire system needs changing, but that requires a mindset and paradigm shift, and in this country, i don't see that happening.
|
|
| | | 7 | Bauxman
ID: 2110171217
Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 19:14
|
Should any blame be put on the government or specific politicians who put this guy out on
the street after he received an 108 year prison sentence?
Yes absolutely. Any politician, law enforcement officer or judge that had a hand in this should be blamed. That is what happens when you commute a sentence or pardon somebody. You have to take that risk.
Is prison overcrowing truly a problem?
If it is, build more prisons. Don't just excuse bad behavior to make room for another con.
What ideas to make our prison and legal system more of a deterrant to crime.
I'm still against the death penalty, but I think prisoners get too many perks and the sentences should be increased. Cable TV? College degrees? I don't think so.
What do you think the rights of prisoners should be?
They are still American citizens so The Bill Of Rights and The Constitution should still apply in terms of rights. There's nothing about TV and college degrees in either of those documents.
Do you think we, a society, would benefit from attempting to actually rehabilitate prisoners, or simply vindictively punish them?
I'm reminded of my childhood when my parents would send me to my room. Well OK thanks Mom and Dad because I had a TV, VCR, Nintendo, cable TV, comic books and a telephone in my room. Wow please don't punish me by sending me to my room. Then my Dad figured out to pull the fuse for my room from the fusebox. Then all of a sudden it wasn't cute to go to my room anymore and my behavior then changed. The punishment was my rehabilitating experience that deterred me from acting up.
Are they entitled to weights? Not if my tax money is paying for it. An area to jog, a place to do push ups and pull ups and sit ups. It may take longer to get a full routine in without weights, but then again, inmates have plenty of time.
Cons should be allowed access to weights and basic exercise equipment. Our tax dollars pay for their medical care and preventative measures like exercise could lower our costs as taxpayers.
Their diets should also be monitored (really no different than what should be done for people on food stamps) where they are nutritious and lack junk like fritos.
They want to expand their minds? Let them read books. They want to practice their religion? Let them practice but don't think my tax money is providing a chapel, mosque or temple area.
I think books are a great idea. Given that we have freedom of religion I wonder if that includes the ability to see a priest?
|
|
| | | 8 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 19:39
|
College degrees? I don't think so.
why not? if you're trying to rehabilitate someone, an education is the best way.
|
|
| | | 9 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 20:08
|
Education is a key, IMO, to lowering the recidivism rates. I'm not so sure that saying that prisoners should be limited from progressing in their education is a good thing.
|
|
| | | 10 | Khahan
ID: 486552412
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 01:04
|
Seems like a a few people that are generally ideologically opposed are kind of on the same page here. There's still some points to of dissention.
For instance:
Cons should be allowed access to weights and basic exercise equipment
Cons should be allowed access to exercise and should be given time. But there are many ways to exercise w/out weights. Why do they need to lift for pure strength gain so they can go out and be that much tougher next time they mug somebody? Definitely keep them healthy. Definitely allow them to exercise. But there are many other avenues.
to me, a major flaw of our criminal justice system is that it has become all about punishment, and not at all about rehabilitation
I think the major flaw in our system is that has become too much about rehabilitation and not enough about punishment. Its become too much about 'prisoner rights' and not enough about "punishing them for violating somebody elses right"
As to the Bill of Rights: It doesn't apply in prison. The warden can go in and inspect any prisoners cell for contraband, I believe, at any time. No warrant is needed. Thats just 1 example. And I have absolutely no problem with this.
But, as many have mentioned, the first step to solving this problem is to break down our prisoner classification. We kind of have this with white collar crime and misdemeanors and felonies. A number of years ago PA State Treasurer Bud Dwyer was going to be going to jail for laundering money. He would NOT have been in the state pen with hardened criminals and murderers. He would have been in a white collar facility.
Perhaps we need to do away w/ the 'white collar' felony type labels and classify them better and have jails appropriate to a more structured classification system.
Simply 'building' more prisons is not the key. They can stack 4 or 5 prisoners in a small room. Nothing unsanitary about that. If one of them gets sick, there is a medical ward to put him in. If one wants to pee on the floor and make it unsanitary, the other 3 will whip him into shape.
|
|
| | | 11 | biliruben
ID: 16105237
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 01:08
|
There is little or no attempt at rehabilitation in our present prison system.
|
|
| | | 12 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 01:09
|
I think the major flaw in our system is that has become too much about rehabilitation and not enough about punishment.
This goes against all recent evidence, however. The fact that we've seen relapse rates soar at the same time as minimum sentencing, "three strikes" rules, and an overall increase in prison time for a wide range of criminal acts is no coincidence. Keeping people longer in prison is not, in fact, reducing the crime rates by those people when they get out.
If you believe that there is, in fact, a "criminal element" (i.e., a group of people who commit a high percentage of crime), then the emphasis on punishment over rehabilitation simply isn't working.
|
|
| | | 13 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 01:19
|
I think the major flaw in our system is that has become too much about rehabilitation and not enough about punishment. Its become too much about 'prisoner rights' and not enough about "punishing them for violating somebody elses right"
i believe you are confusing two issues.
the rehabilitation of prisoners, and the rights of prisoners, are two entirely different things altogether.
|
|
| | | 14 | sarge33rd
ID: 26114336
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 07:43
|
For my money; we need to first redefine various prisoner classifications and establish facilities accordingly.
I don't think that evidence will support any measurable success rates in rehabbing "hardened" criminals convicted of vicious and violent crime.
Those, I would put into a Maximum Security or in some cases a "Super Max"; and rehab options there would be severely limited. I just don't see much in the way of a return, for every dollar invested in it. The idea of those facilities; is to ensure the prisoner STAYS where he/she has been confined.
Others, convicted of far lesser crimes (lesser being relative); I'd confine in Med-Sec or some into Low-Security facilities. The lower the security rating, the greater the rehab options.
I don't believe that under a 3-strikes rule; the unemployed parent who has bounced another check to buy his/her kids some food; should be tossed into prison for X-years under mandatory sentencing. Yet this happens. The community, the general populace and the family itself would in those cases be FAR better served, to provide or help provide a means of employment vs incarceration.
As for Rights; the Bill of Rights still applies. Just that certain of those rights (warrantless search being an example), are suspended while the inmate is housed in a facility which is not theirs. We as a society, still I believe must honor our Constitution. Failure to do so, takes those provisos and removes them as "rights for all", and makes them "rights for those we choose to give them to". (Which introduces all kinds of societal problems. Who is this "we" who decides which person(s) get which right(s)?)
|
|
| | | 15 | Khahan
ID: 391582715
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 09:29
|
I do not have stats, just anectodal evidence (which I'll admit can be very shaky and biased) but it seems to be me that punishment really has gone out the window. Sure we have a lot of smoke & mirrors laws like the 3 strikes to make it look like politicians are doing something.
But lets face it, we constantly hear of people getting sentences commuted or released early. Thats not punishment. We constantly hear of prisoners suing for whatever t hey feel like:
female hormones Sorry, genetically you are a male. If you decide you want to be a female, do it on your own time and your own money. I see no rights to have the state corrections department pay for what you decide to do.
being assaulted by another inmate An inmate attacks him, the deputies on duty pull the attacker off and the county and sheriff get sued? Does he want to be wrapped in bubble wrap and have everybody else hogtied? Thats about the only way the jail can stop an attack from occuring.
sues for special meals Sorry, you're in jail. Does the crime you committed violate any of those religious views you claim to hold so near and dear to your heart? Probably. "Here's your food. If you don't like it, make sure you don't come back when your sentence is over." Its not a religious thing. Vegetarian, religious etc. They provide 3 meal offers. Make your choice and deal with it the same way you did when you committed the crime that got you put there in the first place.
I have no heart for pandering to criminals. Its anectodal stuff like this that makes me think prisoners are just there working the system from the inside. They're in jail and trying to make their lives as comfortable as possible. Can't really blame them for wanting comfort. But I just dont understand the entitled sense of expectation to some of these personalized creature comforts.
|
|
| | | 16 | biliruben
ID: 16105237
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 09:32
|
Kleiman guest-blogging over at Volokh.
I haven't read his book, but the research seems sound, and the approach sensible.
Plus, it's Volokh, so Khakan will find a whole slew of not-so-rational people that agree with him in the comments. ;)
|
|
| | | 17 | biliruben
ID: 16105237
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 10:19
|
This the first article in Kleiman's series. Probably the best place to start.
Engineers have a sardonic saying: “When brute force fails, you’re not using enough.” For three decades, in the face of the great crime wave that started in the early 1960s, we have been trying to solve our crime problem with brute force: building more and more prisons and jails. We now keep 2.4 million of our fellow human beings under lock and key at any one time, and that number has continued to grow despite the spectacular drop in crime between 1994 and 2004, which took crime rates to 50% of their peak levels.
Imprisonment at five times the historical level in the United States, and at five times the level of any of the countries with which we would like to compare ourselves, has not been sufficient to fully reverse the growth in crime; current crime rates are still at 2.5 times the level of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Even that discouraging number understates how much worse things are now than they were half a century ago; today’s high crime rates persist in the face not only of ferocious punishment but also of greatly enhanced – and very costly – adaptations by potential victims to avoid being victimized. Those adaptations range from buying alarm systems to moving to the suburbs. Most of all, they involve avoiding risky situations. The need to take such precautions leaves all of us less free than Americans were half a century ago.
|
|
| | | 18 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 10:21
|
my mom was a parole officer in the state of Texas for 20+ years. my brother and i always referred to her working for "The Death Machine".
she would often talk of one of her parolees coming into her office, if the guy smelled like pot, she would have him/her re-arrested, and sent back to jail.
in many cases, the parolee went to jail many years ago, had avoided any trouble similar to what got him sent to jail, was working a 9 to 5 job, and supporting his family.
sending someone back to jail for smoking some weed, or having a few drinks, if they are otherwise productive and useful, is stupid. it solves nothing, and only helps repeat the cycle.
|
|
| | | 19 | Khahan
ID: 391582715
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 10:34
|
Bili,
Thats an interesting read and fine theory. But I see no evidence that the basis of their theory has been proven true in reality. Where is their testing? I looked at the link to the study they did and found nothing to support the proposed theory.
All I see is that guy presenting a carefully crafted scenario and stating what the outcomes would be as if the basis for his assertions are fact. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
As for my belief about what I think is bs for a prisoner to be able to do, I freely admitted I am basing it on anectodal evidence and that can be suspect at times.
|
|
| | | 20 | Khahan
ID: 391582715
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 10:37
|
few posts got up there before I hit the post button. In 19, I'm referring to bili's post 16 link. Haven't perused the post 17 link which wasn't up when I started my response.
|
|
| | | 21 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 10:41
|
Re: 15-- I think you're roughly 1 1/2 for 3 in your assessments of the lawsuits.
Female hormones -- I think you will find basically universal agreement.
Kosher meals -- I'm going to have to disagree on this one. As you put it "Does the crime you committed violate any of those religious views you claim to hold so near and dear to your heart?" Yeah, probably. Does that mean that because they have committed (according to their religion, and us) a sin, does that mean that they are forever forbidden from trying to repent or otherwise practice their faith? That seems like an awfully harsh spiritual standard.
(In this case, the prisoner is clearly right based on the existing law, because as per the article linked, "Although the Florida Department of Corrections officially provides three different meal plans for prisoners (‘regular,' ‘alternate,' and ‘therapeutic'), none qualify as kosher. The Department refuses to provide kosher meals to Jewish prisoners despite a state administrative code provision directing that "inmates who wish to observe religious dietary laws shall be provided a diet sufficient to sustain them in good health without violating those dietary laws." I understand that we're talking about what should be, not what is, but these lawsuits are happening in the curent reality.)
Assault -- A closer case. Go back to my first sentence of #4. If there isn't some necessity to provide prisoners physical protection from others, then why have cells? It'd be a lot cheaper and probably easier to guard if we just had one big room. Who cares if they just beat and kill each other, right? Less mouths to feed that way. And they shouldn't be protected from the horribly cliche "don't drop the soap" incidents either.
Now that said, there is only so much that a prison can do to protect its inmates from each other, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this was one of those unforeseeable things (or, to be more precise, one of those things that we know will happen occasionally but we're willing to accept because the alternative is keeping all inmates isolated from each other 24/7 and we know that leads to other problems). If, for instance, the victim (and that's what he is in this case, despite being a prisoner) reported to the prison officials on multiple occasions that the other guys had threatened him, attempted to assault him and/or kill him, and they kept putting them in close contact with each other, I think he'd have a pretty good case.
My guess is in this case this falls under "one of those things" and the guys suing because he is bored. Which, unless you want to remove any right for the prisoner to sue over mistreatment -- and that opens up a completely different can of worms that I don't think any of us want to contemplate -- bored prisoners are going to do. It's easy to sue people for things. It's harder to win.
|
|
| | | 22 | Khahan
ID: 391582715
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 11:39
|
I guess some of these issues I have are not truly 'prisoner issues' (though when it is an inmate the issue is magnified for me), but more general issues w/ the other end of our legal system. Many of these (like the transgender) seem like there should be a mechanism in place other than the oft ignored common sense, to tell these people to shut up, sit down and not waste my taxpayer dollars.
I do not have an issue with the Jewish religion or with Vegetarians. But I do have issue with paying for their special set of beliefs (as I would have issue paying for sacramental wine and bread for a Christian inmate to be able to receive communion).
I think I'll let this aspect of it drop though. Not because of a right or wrong or won/lost issue. But more because it really has more to do with civil law than criminal law.
I would like to pick up another point I mentioned that Sarge commented on:
As for Rights; the Bill of Rights still applies. Just that certain of those rights (warrantless search being an example), are suspended while the inmate is housed in a facility which is not theirs
So the Bill of Rights applies, but only part of it? Again, I have no problem with that. I think the search and seizure part is a rare case of common sense winning out to make an exception to the rule.
Obviously the right to bear arms (no matter how you interpret this one) is suspended as well. The right to assembly? Warden can crackdown and recall everybody to their cells at any time. That one out the window. Just pointing out that the most sacred rights of our country do not always apply to prisoners so why should rights for frivolous things be given more credence?
|
|
| | | 23 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 11:45
|
Sometimes what might be frivolous to you, Khahan, might not be for others. The dietary needs of Jews or Muslims, for example, are tied tightly to their religions, and so it might not be a big deal to you (or to me, for that matter), it might not always be frivolous.
I do think that many of the points you are making are anecdotal in nature. That's easy to do with almost 2.5 million people in jail in the US right now at all levels.
|
|
| | | 24 | Pancho Villa
ID: 381047158
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 12:20
|
almost 2.5 million people in jail in the US right now at all levels.
Key words - all levels
It's hard to generalize about incarceration policies because only at the federal level is there any consistency. Every state has an independent prison system, and most jails are affiliated with counties. There are even a few private prison operators which may grow in popularity as states become more and more cash-strapped.
As we saw recently in California, the feds are not above trampling on states' rights, even if there are possible dire effects on communities.
The decision Tuesday by a federal judicial panel ordered California to reduce its prison population by more than 40,000 inmates from a total of about 160,000 over the next two years, to relieve overcrowding and improve medical care for inmates. The special three-judge panel gave the state 45 days to develop a plan to carry out the order, which caps the state prison population at 110,000, or 137.5% of capacity. The state's 33 prisons were designed to hold about 85,000 inmates.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown has said he plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The order comes just two weeks after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a budget deal that includes a $1.2 billion cut to the state prison system.
improve medical care for inmates
Here's an idea. How about improving medical care for citizens not in prison first?
|
|
| | | 25 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 12:56
|
Sometimes what might be frivolous to you, Khahan, might not be for others. The dietary needs of Jews or Muslims, for example, are tied tightly to their religions, and so it might not be a big deal to you (or to me, for that matter), it might not always be frivolous.
i'm jewish, but not religious. my dad, step-mom, and youngest brother are all orthodox, and all kosher.
i'd fight for their religious dietary needs - and those of any prisoner - who has been incarcerated.
they may have violated the law. they may have violated tenets of their religion. it doesn't mean we should throw all their religious beliefs out the window.
as education is the key to rehabilitation for many prisoners, allowing them to freely practice their legal religious beliefs is nearly as key for many others.
freedom of religion is a basic right in this country, and it's not something we should take away from any citizen.
|
|
| | | 26 | Pancho Villa
ID: 381047158
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 13:05
|
freedom of religion is a basic right in this country, and it's not something we should take away from any citizen.
Then let those religious institutes or family members incur the expense of feeding those prisoners special food items.
|
|
| | | 27 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 13:37
|
re Khakan 19:
The evidence: Successful RCT in Hawaii
veryone braced for a flood of missed and failed tests and the consequent sanctions hearings. But then something strange happened: in the first two weeks, only five of the thirty-four broke the rules. The overall rate of missed and failed drug tests dropped by more than 80 percent. Before the program started, the HOPE group had more than twice the noncompliance rate of the comparison group; that’s how they were chosen. HOPE reversed that picture, with program participants testing positive at less than one-quarter the rate of the comparison group. The high level of compliance made the workload perfectly manageable for everyone involved, and Alm was able to expand HOPE to 135 probationers without hiring more people.
Despite tighter monitoring and "zero-tolerance" sanctioning, HOPE participants averaged about the same number of days in jail as the comparison group: about twenty days over the course of a year. But they had only a third as many revocations and were sentenced to only a third as much prison time: on average, 110 days per probationer, as compared to 300 days.
Then Hawaii expanded the program, and it kept working.
----
A solid body of social science and criminological research dating back to the eighteenth century tells us that behavior can be changed by punishment that is certain and swift even if it is not severe. Conversely, if punishments for wrongdoing are sporadic and delayed, increasing severity has only modest impact. That’s why quintupling the prison and jail population has failed to get us back to the crime rates of the early 1960s. (Averaged across major crime categories, current rates are about 250 percent of 1962 rates.) The importance of swift and predictable consequences is plain common sense, understood by every parent. But that lesson has not been incorporated into our corrections system.
|
|
| | | 28 | Bauxman
ID: 2110171217
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 20:47
|
Jesus Christ. I just got home and look what I missed today.
College degrees? I don't think so.
why not? if you're trying to rehabilitate someone, an education is the best way.
Because why in the hell should parents and kids that are normal have to stress out over student loans and whether or not they'll get grant money while cons don't have those worries? You ever have to worry about student loans or how to pay for college?
As for Rights; the Bill of Rights still applies. Just that certain of those rights (warrantless search being an example), are suspended while the inmate is housed in a facility which is not theirs. We as a society, still I believe must honor our Constitution. Failure to do so, takes those provisos and removes them as "rights for all", and makes them "rights for those we choose to give them to". (Which introduces all kinds of societal problems. Who is this "we" who decides which person(s) get which right(s)?)
Um, OK, do Sarge and I agree? Fvck. Somebody check the game film. Did that just happen?
But lets face it, we constantly hear of people getting sentences commuted or released early. Thats not punishment. We constantly hear of prisoners suing for whatever t hey feel like:
Finally somebody says it. Nobody believes there's teeth to the sentence when you tell a guy, "Well with good behavior you'll really get out in 5 instead of 15" when really all that "good behavior" means is that you don't a$$ rape somebody or shank someone over a piece of cornbread.
|
|
| | | 29 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 21:29
|
These prison degrees are a few steps lower than community college degrees. No regular parent would be stressing over paying for an education the equivalent to a prison college degree.
|
|
| | | 30 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 21:36
|
Because why in the hell should parents and kids that are normal have to stress out over student loans and whether or not they'll get grant money while cons don't have those worries? You ever have to worry about student loans or how to pay for college?
you're mixing arguments. one thing has nothing to do with the other. if it were up to me, higher education would be free for anyone who wanted it.
as for me, yea, i did have to worry about paying for college. i got a few loans, and when i wasn't in class i was working in either a sandwich shop or a video store, and on the weekends i bounced at a bar. i know all about how hard it is to pay for an education.
but i'll tell you this - if an education is the difference between a convicted criminal committing crimes upon his release or not, then i am 100 percent behind everyone behind bars getting an education.
|
|
| | | 31 | Khahan
ID: 391582715
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 09:33
|
Um, OK, do Sarge and I agree? Fvck. Somebody check the game film. Did that just happen?
Wow, this thread just became worthwhile!
Sometimes what might be frivolous to you, Khahan, might not be for others. The dietary needs of Jews or Muslims, for example, are tied tightly to their religions, and so it might not be a big deal to you (or to me, for that matter), it might not always be frivolous.
Ok, but where is the line drawn? Of the major world religions, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam have restrictions on main course type foods, not just what is eaten but how its prepared. Mormons have dietary restrictions, Catholics have time sensitive dietary restrictions. And now that we're done just brushing on the variety of dietary restrictions for religious beliefs, what about the various forms of vegetarians? What about cultural preferences?
My question is: Where is the line drawn? At what point is too cumbersome or do truly believe that a prison cafeteria should have an al a carte menu to cater to so many different sets of beliefs?
|
|
| | | 32 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 09:39
|
The dietary needs of Jews or Muslims, for example, are tied tightly to their religions, and so it might not be a big deal to you (or to me, for that matter), it might not always be frivolous.
Your in prison as long as the food is healthy and adequate...that is enough, your in prison. If you have problem with the food do not commit a crime.
|
|
| | | 33 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 09:45
|
Re: education--why does it have to be free? Why not give the prisoner the equivalent of a student loan? (and yes, I understand that it's not going to be paid back in a number of cases--humor me for a minute)
Isn't one of the provisions of parole usually to get gainful employment? Garnish the wages a small amount to cover the cost of the degree--which, let's be honest, is NOT exactly going to break the bank in terms of actual cost. Prisons don't have residence halls to build, alumni to send newsletters to, and women's field hockey teams to pay for. It's acceptable to do this because you aren't forcing the prisoner to get the degree, you're offering it as an option, and if it will come a lot closer to paying for itself, I think a lot of the objections would melt away pretty quickly.
|
|
| | | 34 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 09:53
|
DWetz - i think that's a really solid idea. loans and such, and then a payment plan involving wage garnishment.
also, solid point that most degrees would be "correspondence school" style...
|
|
| | | 35 | Khahan
ID: 391582715
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 10:06
|
I'd go even one further than Dwetzel. Get them jobs while in prison. Whether its working in the laundry room, as a librarian or working on a chain gang. Pay them. But that money goes into a pot not accessible until release and until they are employed in the outside world. But that pot can be used to pay for higher education. They can work off their loans in prison so they don't come out behind the 8-ball so to speak.
|
|
| | | 36 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 10:08
|
Re: sentencing--I don't think anyone would really have a problem with the sentencing such as brought up at the end of post 28 if it was phrased as "you're going to prison for 5 years" and it actually meant 5 years.
The current sentencing system is stupid in that it tries to please everyone--people trying to puff up their chests and be "tough on crime" by hawking long prison sentences (don't even get me started on 'mandatory sentencing' garbage, that's almost worthy of its own thread), while other people get to incentivize prisoners to behave well in prison.
Here's a wacky idea: treat crimes inside a prison like other crimes. You know, have a trial for them and stuff. It's a controlled environment with about a zillion cameras, should be pretty damn easy to gather evidence. If someone does something that would be considered "bad behavior", charge them with a crime and tack any sentence on to the end.
|
|
| | | 37 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 11:01
|
Here's a wacky idea: treat crimes inside a prison like other crimes. You know, have a trial for them and stuff. It's a controlled environment with about a zillion cameras, should be pretty damn easy to gather evidence. If someone does something that would be considered "bad behavior", charge them with a crime and tack any sentence on to the end.
And cut the length of initial sentences. It wont matter that someone sentences is too short, if they are not behaving will in prison they will never get out.
|
|
| | | 38 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 11:36
|
Yeah, that too basically. Truth in sentencing (which currently doesn't mean anything like what it sounds like it should mean) and all that.
|
|
| | | 39 | Biliruben movin
ID: 358252515
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 12:45
|
Re35 - at Folsom, this used to be how it was. Jobs in prison.
Learning trades. Actual rehab. They had incredibly low
recidivism. Through budget cuts and overcrowding, as well
as a too-powerful union, all that is gone. Now it's a crappy
prison with hi recidivism like most everywhere else.
|
|
| | | 40 | Bauxman
ID: 2110171217
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 18:24
|
I'd go even one further than Dwetzel. Get them jobs while in prison. Whether its working in the laundry room, as a librarian or working on a chain gang. Pay them. But that money goes into a pot not accessible until release and until they are employed in the outside world. But that pot can be used to pay for higher education. They can work off their loans in prison so they don't come out behind the 8-ball so to speak.
You must not be familiar with the costs of higher education. Further, why the hell should I pay them enough money to afford a college education? I'm sure some rape victim just loooooves the idea of her tax dollars going to her rapist so he can learn about world history.
|
|
| | | 41 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 18:32
|
Maybe they don't love it. But the next woman who isn't raped because the guy learns to act lawfully when out will.
|
|
| | | 42 | Bauxman
ID: 2110171217
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 18:35
|
Right, because people with a college education don't rape people.
|
|
| | | 43 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 18:38
|
Do you anything at all about rehabilitative efficiency or prison recidivism? No? Didn't think so.
If you don't know what works,
|
|
| | | 44 | Bauxman
ID: 2110171217
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 18:40
|
I know that if they're in prison they aren't raping anybody I care about except the taxpayer.
|
|
| | | 45 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 18:47
|
Eventually, they get out. That's the problem. But awfully smart people are of the belief, after actually studying the issue, that your proposals hurt society, not help.
Think of this: Many of the crimes going on right now, including violent crime that can affect you and/or people around you, are as a result of people who have done time. These people were in prison, where we had the opportunity to try to get them on a better track. But we didn't, because of people like you who have a visceral hatred of anyone coming out of prison a better person.
So now, we have a prison system which is really, really good at one thing: Making career criminals.
|
|
| | | 46 | Bauxman
ID: 2110171217
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 20:53
|
I have a visceral hatred of spending money on cons while normal people struggle.
|
|
| | | 47 | biliruben
ID: 16105237
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 22:18
|
Me too.
The only difference is that I look for ways to spend less. You rage, but your rage blinds you, and forces us to spend more.
|
|
| | | 48 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 23:54
|
By virtually every single measure, the current "prisons, not rehab" costs us. In terms of money, crime, percentage of people in prison, the criminalization of all sorts of stuff.
It does make you feel good, perhaps. But it doesn't actually work. Look out--you're turning into a liberal!
|
|
| | | 49 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Dec 05, 2009, 00:11
|
"I have a visceral hatred of spending money on cons while normal people struggle. "
Solution: transform cons into non-cons. Then, there will be less of them to spend money on.
|
|
| | | 50 | Khahan
ID: 486552412
Sat, Dec 05, 2009, 00:47
|
First, please keep it civil. Refer to the op about thread rules.
Bauxman, you keep referring to the unreasonable cost of higher education. Why? These are not Yale degrees we are discussing. They are not even state college degrees or community college level degrees we are talking about. Most of the 'higher education' that is available is somewhere between a GED and a community college level.
If they are working to pay for it, why should we begrudge them the chance to expand themselves and further their minds? And by doing so they are potentially bettering themselves and setting themselves up to function in the real world once prison is done.
Obviously not every prisoner will. But with the millions in our prison system, I'd have to think that many of them could.
|
|
| | | 51 | Bauxman
ID: 2110171217
Sat, Dec 05, 2009, 06:04
|
Bauxman, you keep referring to the unreasonable cost of higher education. Why? These are not Yale degrees we are discussing.
Because I know first hand how painful it is to pay for college and the gift that a college education is. I put myself through college (both undergrad and MBA) by working during the day and going to school at night for six years.
My wife would not have been able to go to college unless if she won the scholarship (merit based not demographic) she did for her undergrad. She then proceeded to put herself through night school to get her masters and is now doing the same for her doctorate. We see each other for one hour a night on weekdays because of this.
I would much rather take that money spent on education in the prison system and give it to normal hard working people so they can get ahead. The rapist had his chance, he failed. The couple trying to get ahead is playing by the rules and nobody reaches out to help them. That isn't right. Why should the rapist get a second chance when a lot of normal people don't even get a first chance?
|
|
| | | 52 | sarge33rd
ID: 50111656
Sat, Dec 05, 2009, 07:21
|
I would much rather take that money ... and give it to normal hard working people so they can get ahead.
Do be careful Baux. That statement puts you in dire jeopardy of receiving a Liberal Membership Card in the mail.
|
|
| | | 53 | Bauxman
ID: 2110171217
Sat, Dec 05, 2009, 07:27
|
You edited out half the sentence.
|
|
| | | 54 | sarge33rd
ID: 50111656
Sat, Dec 05, 2009, 07:40
|
Just like Foxspews.
|
|
| | |
| | | 61 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Thu, Dec 17, 2009, 18:09
|
that's exactly why i oppose it as well, Sarge.
|
|
| | | 62 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 19:29
|
The innocence project turnes up another.
Claude Jones was convicted of the 1989 murder of a Texas liquor store owner based, according to the linked Texas Observer article, on scant forensic evidence: a single piece of hair which the prosecution convinced the jury belonged to Jones.
Jones' request for a stay of execution so that the hair could be submitted for DNA testing was denied by then governor George Bush and he was executed in December 2000.
DNA tests completed this week confirm the hair did not belong to Jones, but the store owner and victim in the shooting.
|
|
|
|