There are some rays of hope–Oregon DOC officials have been studying the Norwegian model to see how much of that ethos can be implemented on our prison population. Oregon has an unusually draconian mandatory minimum law, Measure 11, that has resulted in a threefold increase in the prison population since its inception some 25 years ago and traps adults in custody (AIC is the preferred term here, rather than “prisoner” or “inmate”) into some lengthy terms, quite often on a first time offense. We’re starting to acknowledge that this system is a massive failure, resulting in a rapidly aging prison population with massive health care needs and inadequate resources to serve them.
Something has to give, we can’t just keep throwing money at it and in a huge number of cases we’re seeing relatively young people on first or at most second offenses that run afoul of M11 and since there’s no prosecutorial or judicial discretion we’re bunging away nonviolent, nonrepeat offenders for huge lengths of time when they could have been doing a shit ton of community service, paying victim restitution and paying for their own court mandated therapy and diversion services. Not to mention their own health care and supporting their families.
But no, we must punish. And the time when an AIC is most open to change and rehabilitation is when they’re just at the beginning of their sentence, the court bit is done, the die is cast and here’s prison. That’s when a person is SO open to alternatives and in need of healing, having just grenaded their lives and the lives of their families–if we were getting them into therapy, giving them the means to better themselves and to learn a better way in a regimented environment that highly encourages compliance we have a better than good shot at diverting them into more productive and prosocial paths. They done fucked up, they know that, so let’s build on that and actually help people fix their shit.
Or, y’know, keep on ratcheting up the misery–I’d like to think that we’re all getting a good close look at how well that makes us all behave and how good it makes us feel and how motivating that misery is to just jump right up and haul on our bootstraps. Doesn’t work, does it? Well, doesn’t work on AICs either.
Oh, and using them for slave labor is a whole 'nother level of evil.
That isn’t the choice being made, because funds which might go to prison air conditioning certainly aren’t going to alleviate hunger or poverty. You may as well ask whether I’d like to air condition prisons or cure cancer.
When the state incarcerates people, it takes on responsibility for their health and safety. We know - full stop - that prisoners have suffered and died due to a lack of climate control. That’s unacceptable, and the state has blood on its hands.
And if the cost is prohibitive? Perhaps there should be a desire to make costs “sufficiently unpleasant” for the state that it will encourage meaningful criminal justice reform with an eye towards reducing the number of citizens incarcerated for nonviolent crimes and meaningfully reducing recidivism among those people who do end up in jail.
In the right climate, AC may not be necessary, the same way some places get away with building houses lacking serious insulation, but, if people are dying of heat stroke or freezing then we should define those conditions as inhumane. I am positive there are even some quantitative standards if you insist on defining it, for example along the lines of the World Health Organization’s minimum of 18 °C and maximum 25–32.
ETA that goes for any human occupancy, not specifically prisons.
We spend massive amounts of money on hunger and poverty and yes, Section 8 housing with air conditioning for poor people. I’m not sure of your objection to this statement.
So, prior to the invention of indoor climate control, incarceration itself made the state “have blood on its hands”? If the state does not provide climate control to poor people who are not incarcerated, same thing?
But 3) just gives away your position. You don’t believe in incarceration in general. You confine your remarks to the non-violent (which definition typically excludes white collar crime for some reason) inmates.
Instead of going back and forth about air conditioning, and returning to the OP, what is your bottom line position on this issue? Should Bernie Madoff not be in prison, for example? What about any of Trump’s inner circle if it is proven they colluded with Russia? All tax cheats not be sent to prison? Can I steal as much money as I want, assuming that I don’t raise a hand to anyone, secure in the knowledge that I won’t go to prison? If so, what is the alternative punishment?
What creature comforts should he be offered of relatively recent invention? At what point does a new invention become a requirement to provide for prisoners lest we be living in the dark ages?
Perhaps re-read my post, since this is either a willful or ignorant misinterpretation of it.
Prior to the invention of climate control, there were other means available to combat dangerous temperatures. If the state did not make those available to prisoners and they died or suffered as a result, then yes - same thing.
Now we’re back to the willful or ignorant misrepresentation thing.
I would look beyond the prison system and consider Norway’s view of the government’s and society’s role in shaping human behavior compared to ours. Norway has a more humane system of justice, just as it has a more humane, and less individualistic, view of individuals generally. What is pejoratively referred to as a welfare state in this country is seen as a safety net in other parts of the world. There’s an assumption that if someone is having a hard time keeping up with society, then society should help bring that individual in line with everyone else.
In the US, we have a large prison population in no small part because we don’t really governments to embrace a humane view of the individual.
What about the argument that we have so much respect for the individual that we want to harshly punish someone who harms an individual? I know it is trite, but it has some legitimacy that really this entire thread ignores. You rape a child and you do 30 years. Your 30 years shouldn’t be unreasonably harsh or cruel, but you don’t get creature comforts like air conditioning or Netflix. You might have to do hard labor like many people who didn’t commit crimes have to do.
I agree, no thumbscrews, no unnecessary discomfort but you aren’t living at the Four Seasons. If you don’t have air conditioning then join the millions of others who don’t. As a response to other posters, I have no problems with prisons having to open the doors or allow outside time, but to mandate a modern invention as an interpretation of the Constitution enacted in 1789 seems silly.
I embrace the idea that punishment is a central component of “justice,” but denying someone air conditioning in sweltering heat in an overcrowded prison is cruelty. Being cruel isn’t being just. I’m saying that the same society that tolerates cruelty and abuse of prisoners is the same one that tolerates a lot of other things it shouldn’t.
What if we have that cure, but it costs $1 billion per person. Or $1 million. Or $100k. Or $1.00. Does the Constitution empower judges to pick that number and say that this number runs afoul of the Eighth Amendment, but this other one doesn’t?
If so, I think I don’t overstate my position by saying that then we are no longer in a democracy but a rule by judicial fiat. We can no longer decide, by vote of the people, what sort of care we give to the prison population. We have a rule of 9 of our betters who tell us what we must provide. That isn’t democracy.
Very well said! The justice system should be objective, and any widow of a murdered person would be subjective. Therefore put no emphasis on the widows wishes or anger. Use the court system to decide, not biased participants.