Permit me, if I may, to focus down on this one. I have often thought of starting a thread on this subject. To this question I answer, hell no! Why on earth would we ever want to let prisoners interact with other prisoners? I say, you should spend your whole sentence without ever even seeing another prisoner, much less having enough of an interaction to exchange shiv-making tips or get anally raped or in any other way contribute to the creation of a prison culture.
They have to eat…feed 'em in the cells. They want to excercise? Let 'em do push-ups. Visitors from the outside? That’s fine. But I think the standard should be, no prisoner to prisoner interaction at all. I see very little good that can come of such a thing, and a lot of bad.
Social isolation can drive a person insane. Frankly, the last thing you want is crazy criminals being released when their sentances are up. Most prisoners, after all, are short-termers who * will * be released.
Secondly, most prisons are not set up for isolating each inmate. The one in which my husband works is dormitary-style. Hundreds of prisoners sleep in one large room with bunk beds. To retro-fit this prison with individual cells, sinks and toilets would be astronomically expensive.
Third, prsions currently use isolation or “the hole” as a means of punishment. How do you punish a man who has no privledges?
Little Nemo and Psycho_Pachik Vampire have done a great job of explaining how prisoners are currently treated in Texas and New York, and I’d like to thank them for such illuminating posts. I was also wondering if they think this is how prisoners SHOULD be treated – or do you see any flaws in the system that could use fixing?
I also don’t think either program described addresses rehabilitation issues with any real rigor, though New York’s seems slightly ahead in that regard.
Everyone in prison is technically guilty, whether or not they actually did the crime. That sounds cold, I know, but it’s reality.
I can see the frustration that a man who has been wrongly imprisoned must feel in a situation like that. It really is one of those damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t quandries.
However, most inmates claim to be innocent. Making an exception for every single one of them is not feasible.
Prison is a punishment meant to take away freedom. Confinement is the punishment. Allowing prisoners to watch television or socialize in some way is keeping them human, relative to those of us that remain free, because a great number of these humans will be free again.
If prison is easy for some people, it isn’t because we’re doing it wrong, but because their lives are so fucked up that their freedom to act on their wills is reduced to the point of not being a great difference from prison. All they lose is regular contact with people they know.
Think about giving up your freedom, your job, contact with your family and friends and significant other. Think of giving up your material possessions that can’t be taken up by the people you know (after all, you can’t pay for storage forever, you don’t have a job!). Think of giving up your freedom. Does the ability to play basketball with people you don’t even know and watch television really replace all that? If so, then we know the prudent course for all college-bound students is to go to jail and get a free education.
For people who think it isn’t so bad to be in prison, what must their lives be like?
IMO prison is more or less where it should be, but I think that prisoners need a way to earn and save money to make an easier transition back into society.
Of course this theory is extremely stressful for the occasional innocent prisoner. Or the prisoner who honestly does not feel his behavior was wrong, and who has a point, such as the many drug war victims in our prisons.
Doesn’t sound cold. Sounds purposefully dumb. Just because you ignore the possibility that prisoners might be innocent does not mean the issue isn’t real.
I appreciate the view, Evil Captor, but I don’t see how a justice system is supposed to adjust its chosen punishments based on the idea that it can make mistakes. Rather the focus should be on recognizing and compensating for those mistakes than changing the punishments.
I think the what the OP meant to say by “for entertainment, not legal” was “of course we have to give them access to law books and legal materials, but should we give them access to books for entertainment only?”
For one, they should indeed change the punishments: by eliminating the death penalty. Now, I don’t mean to hijack a hijack but not only is the death penalty pretty hard to take back if you make a mistake, but it also, IMHO, adversely impacts those who are NOT guilty.
The recent study of a state where an extremely large number of those on death row were wrongly convicted (as in, at least whopiing administrative errors if not outright innocence,) MIGHT lead one to believe that an extremely large proportion of our criminals, even those destined for the final punishment, are not guilty.
I, however, wouldn’t take it that far. I would, however, hypothesize that people who are NOT guilty are, in the sentencing phase, are less likely to seem contrite and sorry for what they “did”, since it their case, they did nothing. Therefore, the jury and or judge tends to throw the book at them and disproportionately apply the death penalty.
So, the death penalty AND selective programs based on admission of guilt are both instances of way the justice system skews in favor of the actually guilty, punishing the innocent.
Was the “you” refering personally to me, or to the justice system? 'Cause if you meant I was ignoring the possibility of wrongful incarceration, I beg to differ. Nothing could be more tragic than losing years of your life, the respect of your friends/family, and future career opprotunities because of something you didn’t do. It pains me to think of it, but I understand the perspective that corrections professionals must have.
Corrections professionals cannot make a personal judgement on whether or not the inmate is truly guilty. They are not investigators or court officials, and, most of the time, do not know the full details of the case. They must accept the judgement of the state and treat the inmate accordingly. Prison staff should not be second-guessing the court system and deciding that, for example, an inmate doesn’t need a program because they * feel * he’s not guilty.
I’m sure many of them have a hard time with it, and may secretly feel that a certain conviction wasn’t justified, but they must follow the rules. Prison is not a place in which exceptions can be made. It’s dangerous to do so.
For full text of the above, and some reasons for the discrepancy in the number of guilty pleas: “Once you are Accused”. Note this doesn’t address the issue of non-violent drug offenders, who are technically guilty. It also doesn’t address the larger issue of the prison industrial complex.
But “one out of 143” scares the hell out of me. And they’re building more prisons.
For the record it was a generic “you.” I just think it would be extremely painful to go through the injustice you described, then get browbeaten into admitting to a crime you didn’t commit, on pain of being denied parole. Kinda fiendish, really. And I know corrections people can’t second-guess the justice system, but it still sucks on ice.
No it does not, and I have to assume, erislover, that you have either been in prison, or are very close to someone who has. This kind of insight comes only from one who’s been there. If this is not the case, then you are unbelievably perceptive.
Lack of freedom is something you simply cannot fathom unless you’ve experienced it. I’m not talking about a night in the county drunk tank, I’m talking about many months or years of having your freedom taken away.
I was one of the lucky ones. First time, non-violent drug offense. Twenty-one months courtesy of Uncle Sam. Fifteen months in prison, four months in a halfway house, and two months of home confinement.
In the federal system, much is the same as Little Nemo and Psycho have articulated (you don’t mind if I call you Psycho, do you? Reminds me of…). Anyway, what is different in the fed system is that the prisons themselves are either minimum, medium, or maximum security. There is little mixing of the “bad” and the “good”. You have to earn a spot in a minimum security camp, and if you aren’t “good”, you’re gone in a heartbeat.
A camp is where I was placed originally because of my status, and my relatively short sentence. It was an old college campus in the middle of a residential neighborhood. It had an ornamental wrought-iron fence around the perimeter, and we actually had to cross a residential street (and watch for cars) when going to chow.
Was it nice and comfy? Sure. We had a track, weight equipment, a full size gym, hell, we even had electric guitars and drum sets.
But it was still a prison, and they still locked the door behind you at night. I saw my wife once a month, and my kids even less because of the distance.
Don’t underestimate the deterrant effect that lack of freedom instills in a person, regardless of the how comfortable it is.
Country club? I don’t think so. I still have nightmares of being “in-house”.
I think what they deserve is to get a job and have to pay to make restitution. If you steal my watch, you can go to prison, and that’s great, but I’m still without my watch. My mother worked at the local prison, and they have a golf course. Now why would this deter someone?
That said, I don’t know why street people don’t just hold up a 7-11 to go to prison, where they are at least given three meals a day. Wouldn’t that be better than living on the street?
I would like to know a little more about this prison, and just how much access the inmates actually had to the “golf course”.
In any case, perhaps my post above can give you a little insight. Just hope that someone you love doesn’t make a mistake, you would then learn quickly what I’m talking about.
But this statement could be rewritten as “The crime rate has declined due to America’s growing prison population.” After all, one of the main reasons people are incarcerated is to prevent crimes. So it’s certainly arguable that increased incarceration rates leads to a reduced crime rate.
What is the difference between being actually innocent and factually innocent? I assume people who are actually innocent did not commit the crime they were found guilty of. From this, I’m assuming people who are factually innocent did commit the crime they were accused of but might have been found not guilty under some circumstances.
