Civilized Prisons, Anyone

Great Debates
1

I think all confinement should be solitary confinement. Let me give some reasons.

First, if I was in prison, would I rather be locked in with a 265 pound guy whose eyes spin like pinwheels, and whose amatory intentions could not be easily diverted, or locked in a cell by myself? Easy question.

Second, prisons right now are a school for crime. Guys sit around and tell each other how to do the rape right next time, so they don’t get caught.

Third, it would reduce prisoner on prisoner violence immensely.

Fourth, it would be much cheaper.

A well lighted cell, with a bed, a toilet, a shower, and a hole in the door to put the food through. Pipe in some sunlight, it’s easy to do. I don’t want to go sit and eat with a bunch of homicidal maniacs … I don’t want to shower where I’m afraid to bend over and pick up the soap …

Then, generally shorten the sentences, 'cause the time would go real slow. Let people sit and think about what they’ve done. Do pushups. Think about it some more.

What problems (or improvements) would y’all see in this plan?

2

… probably should have posted this to Great Debates … it’s late …

3

Wouldn’t it send the prisoners insane? The only way to stop that happening would be to allow them out to socialise, and then that’s just blown the reasons that you had for solitary confinement: violence and propagating crime.

4

How do you figure? The biggest problem the prison system in the US faces is overcrowding, and your plan would just make it worse. And it would require a lot more staff.

I think your reasons in #2 and #3 are based on some assumptions that may not be correct. But it seems like the basic premise of your idea is that we ought to make the prison expereince a better one, and in my mind that kind of defeats the whole point of prison as a deterrent.

5

It’s been tried before. In Port Arthur, Tasmania, there’s the remains of a prison where all the prisoners were in solitary confinement. Even when they went to chapel, the chapel was built so they could only see the preacher, and could not see anyone else. Yes, a lot of the prisoners went insane.

6

The British tried this in the 19th century, the ‘separate system’.

"All prisoners had their own cell in which they worked all day, to keep them apart so that they could not talk to each other. They were allowed to leave their cells for exercise, but then they were separated by each being made to hold a knot in a rope held taut between prisoners. The knots were 15 feet (nearly 5 metres) apart. Prisoners also attended services in the chapel, where they also sat apart from each other, facing the preacher.

The separate system caused a lot of concern during the second half of the 19th century. By that time people were aware that many prisoners, far from being reformed, were being driven insane by the constant silence and isolation."

Link

7

Do you think it matters more than violence or recidivism? ($10 word meaning "prisoners’ tendency to break the law again and reenter prison.)

Is imprisonment itself not enough of a deterrent? Do prisons also have to be dangerous, or inhumane, or harden criminals?

(It’ll sure be enlightening if Qadgop or Lissa or someone with a similarly enlightened perspective joines this thread.)

8

Do you think it matters more than violence or recidivism? ($10 word meaning "prisoners’ tendency to break the law again and reenter prison.)

Is imprisonment itself not enough of a deterrent? Do prisons also have to be dangerous, or inhumane, or harden criminals?

(It’ll sure be enlightening if Qadgop or Lissa or someone with a similarly enlightened perspective joins this thread.)

9

The initial idea for “penitentiaries” was a Quaker notion that criminals did bad things because they had lost touch with the divine element within them, and that time spent away from others would force them to commune with that divine element and hence become better human beings. So the first penitientiaries in Pennsylvania were all-solitary-confinement prisons, and like the other solitary confinement prisons, drove many prisoners mad. Apparently, communing with the divine is not conducive to sanity.

10

Not true at all. Lets understand contemporary prison/jail construction. Most housing areas are DORMITORY style - considerably cheaper to construct and maintain than individual cells. But more significantly, the largest single “overhead” cost in correctional facilities is labor - the cost of Corrections Officers, their overtime, benefits, pensions, etc.

Supervisory ratios for dormitory style (low security classification) housing is much lower than in various forms of administrative segration (aka solitary). Given court mandates to keep inmates from harming themselves and/or escaping, etc. it requires a much higher staffing level to house inmates individually.

As regards inmate to inmate or inmate to staff violence, those numbers have declined significantly in the past decade through better supervision techniques, better security on incoming contraband, etc. Here is a link Warning: PDF to some raw data from Riker’s Island which illustrates the downward trend, accomplished by improving supervision, not by individual housing. The charts are a bit hard to read, but the data is all there for you.

11

Adding a few more thoughts:

You are definitely safer from inmate to inmate sexual assault in your own cell. No dispute. However, given other comments hoping to increase the deterrence value of incarceration - do you really want the inmate more comfortable???

They do this at home also. In bars, on the street corner, in Frat houses. sigh.

See my previous post.

See my previous post.

The correctional facilities I have worked in don’t have showers in single occupancy cells. Way too expensive. Food is also served in common areas - no room service allowed. Also, the SCOTUS has ruled that 23 hours of “solitary” confinement is the maximum allowable in a 24 hour period… the inmate must have exercise outside the cell.

Which crimes would you like to ease back on? Rape? Murder? Child Abduction? I think we need some more specific thoughts here.
[soapbox] Incarceration generally has three purposes in the 21st century. Custody (keep the inmates from harming citizens) Control (keep inmate to inmate and inmate to staff violence down to absolute minimums) and Care (SCOTUS and other court ordered required health care, food standards etc.) BTW… Care is NOT a country club atmosphere - that nonsense is for radio talk show reality, not correctional facility reality.

Note that in those three purposes - rehabilitation is not listed. It is my opinion (not fact) that rehabilitation is a uniquely 19th century value. Modern facilities have essentially given up on that one eons ago. When someone comes up with true and valid behavior modification techniques that last a lifetime, they can make a huge impact on society (and lots of money) by teaching us how to apply those techiniques to the career criminal population. Until then, rehabilitation is a myth [/soapbox]

12

The OP needs to spend a few years working in a prison beofre commenting.

The OP does not seem to have the slightest understanding of the work that takes place in prisons to address reoffending, education, mental and physical health issues, employment training etc etc etc.

Oddly enough, I do actually think there is a place for such institutions of a very similar nature, fortunately so do many governments as well, as a result just about every country in existance has differant levels of classification of prisons from the lowest security for the milder offences, right through to the US supermax.

If the OP is addressing the recidivist prisoner, there is a debate to be had here.
It is not all that rare to come across prisoners with perhaps 200 offences, or more.
Such individuals are unlikely to contribute to society in their lifetime, and worse, they can and do father children who may well end up as criminals themselves.

I have come across this many times, where prisoners will talk about their family background which will involve close family members also immersed in crime.

It would seem there could be a case argued for doubling up the jail term every time a criminal appears before the courts.

Typically, a heroin addict will have a $400 - $800 a week habit, to get that money they may have to steal, rob or deal themselves.
Whatever they steal will usually onlt get a fraction of its value from fence, to get that $400 the addict will have to steal over $4k a week, every week.
Its cheaper and less stressful on society to never let them out, on so many levels it would be kinder on the rest of us.

The costs of the revolving door involve police investigation time, the judiciary, insurance claims and the human cost which cannot be so easily calculated.

The UK is slowly evolving its criminal justice system so that repeat offenders end up on a life licence.
Upon release, the criminal must adhere to specified terms on his licence of freedom. This can involve not frequenting a district, it may involve not associating with certain individuals, or types of individuals(such as gang bangers)

Breach any of these terms, and the licence is revoked, the criminal goes back to jail, no trial.

13

Remarkably, prisoners are not beamed down from low-Earth orbit. They are our sons, brother (and our daughters and sisters). We need to keep that in mind. I would not a system to treat them in any way I would not be willing to be treated if the situation was reversed.

14

And obviously you’re not anxious to be the one to think them… :dubious: How about drug possession? Income tax evasion? White collar stuff? Stuff you could serve out under monitored house arrest, only grandstanding politicians insist on giving hard time to as many people as possible for as many offenses as possible because it helps the public and the system get their rocks off?

Just a few ideas…

15

Aah, IsoCubes. Judge Dredd would be so proud.

I think the OP is under the mistaken impression that all prisoners walk with their backs to the walls or corks up their rectums, when they aren’t passing each other rape tips. Newsflash: OZ is a fantasy series!

16

Evil Captor’s correct, we already tried the solitary approach to prisons here in the United States, along with a few other nations, and it just made men into basket cases. Human beings are social creatures and when deprived of human contact we can go a bit funny.

The OP does have some valid criticisms of prisons though. Often times it is a place where people come out worse then they were when they got in. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any tried and true method of rehabilitation and I am not convinced you can rehabilitate anyone without their consent.

Marc

17

Take a deep breath Doug. What I was doing was asking the poster to think through a VERY blanket statement. In fact, I have given a considerable amount of thought and work to that question over many years. My thoughts or yours on sentencing guidelines are for a different thread than this one.

Why get personal about it?

18

Ah. Apologies. I missed said blanket statement and ass/u/me/d yours was intended as such.

Still. You’ll agree, I take it, that sentence reform is a non-starter in political debate. Practically speaking, sentencing can only be “reformed” in one direction: harsher.

19

Apology accepted.

I would tend to agree with you about increasing most terms, but not as a generalization. Remember that New York State went through a 20+ year period when the so-called “Rockefeller” laws were on the books. A 30 year prison sentence for possession of a joint or two is a bit harsh. Both Dems and Repubs, libs and conservatives came to consensus about those anti-drug laws and most of them have been repealed. An extreme example, but worth remembering.

The other factor to consider is cost. We went through a major boom in prison construction in the 80s and 90s nationally, when lots of sentences were lengthened and tons of new laws were crafted to fight the major crime increases of the time. There was a huge price to pay for that construction, most of it being reactionary in nature to overcrowding, rather than proactive planning. If we are going to lengthen sentences (and I am in favor of that mostly) we need to involve the Police and the Courts and the Corrections folks, so that the entire system can plan it. How is that for a utopian vision? (Ain’t never gonna happen, sigh)

20

The OP must confess that his only experience of prisons has been as an inmate … are you seriously saying that in addition I’m required to work as a prison guard before commenting on prisons?

Regarding people going insane, put in a tv with a wide selection of educational videos. Many people spend most of their lives in a room with a tv, and they don’t go nuts. But I’m not sure that the question of people going insane is not exaggerated. Remember that monks manage to sit in their cells and not go insane despite not talking to anybody.

Someone said it would be more expensive, which I doubt. The major costs in prisons is guards. If the prisoners are in their cells, by themselve, 23/7, it will take many less guards than if they have to be escorted to the dining room, guarded in the showers, and like that.

Finally, and incredibly to me, someone said regarding getting anally raped and sexually abused that:

Is that truly your point of view? To just put the animals in together, and let them rape and kill each other, 'cause prison shouldn’t be comfortable?

Yikes …

w.