Psycho
Actually, we preferred to be called “prisoners”. But, “inmate” is fine by me, I consider myself to have been mentally ill for allowing myself to get in the position I was in.
So the inmates suffer because your state wasn’t bright enough to build a big enough chow hall?
When was the last time you ate a full meal in five minutes?
I saw this alot. But then, there were the CO’s who couldn’t wait to right up a case, and weren’t too concerned about the actual facts.
Psycho, you seem to have a pretty good outlook as a CO, from what I can tell of your posts. You are firm, by the book, but understanding. Many inmates are idiots, I’ll grant you that, but many of us were/are not. Take care of the good ones, and give the bad ones what they deserve – four walls, some food, and a toilet.
It’s never been about how bright the state is, but how much money it has. And it simply did not have the money to build large chow halls. Hell, it built four of them for that one unit alone. And I have eaten in five minutes or less. Hell, an ex-military guy who I went through the academy and On the Job Training with was talking about how they were required to eat a full meal in two minutes. If it’s possible, then let’s do it.
And as for treating the good guys good and the bad guys bad, there’s no such thing. When they’re acting right I’ll be courteous and helpful and I’ll do my job. When they’re acting a fool I’ll still do my job and put him in his place. But I can’t treat any of them differently. I can’t think to myself “That punk was an asshole yesterday, so fuck him.” And treat him differently than the other offenders. There have been several inmates who have been punks with me one day, then the next they’re needing me to fulfill my job and I do come through. There’s no good-ole-boy system with me. It’s all about what’s happening in the present.
Psychopachik Vampire
I predict this will change at some point in your career. The punk should have had nothing coming from you until he proves he isn’t a punk anymore.
I treated every CO with respect, whether he/she deserved it or not. I never received a shot, and the one time I came close (it could have gone either way), other CO’s backed me up and prevented the write up. One even fought tooth and nail for me to keep my cushy orderly job. You think that would have happened if I didn’t treat the CO’s with respect?
I’m not talking about brown-nosing, ass-kissing, snitching or anything like that. I’m talking about basic respect for those in authority over you.
On the other hand, you don’t need to treat anybody with respect until they show you they deserve it. That’s the difference between the cops and the prisoners. And, frankly, I wouldn’t blame you for taking that position.
A punk one day is a punk the next until he proves otherwise.
Absolutely. The well-behaved prisoners get more privileges. This should be common sense.
This is also a valid point.
The only thing I would add, is that a primary consideration needs to be threat of escape. It would make no sense to put a lifer in a minimum security facility. If his crime deserved a life sentence, than his “privileges” must be much less than someone whose crime didn’t.
Now, let’s take a look at another point of view:
Comparing your comments to these, which one reflects utter cluelessness and ignorance?
ONe of the real difficulties with prisons is the political element. I would argue that a large number of the people who are in prison for simple pot possession are political prisoners, not the same as robbers, murderers and rapists.I think they shouldn’t be in jail, and my viewpoint of how prisons should be run will always be determined by that.
Yeah, someone possessing pot is breaking the law, but so did the Founding Fathers once upon a time, and of course everybody thinks they’re swell … now. And the guys who persecuted the witches in Salem, Mass., were just following their duty under the law, which we recognize as incredible barbarism and cruelty … now.
Arguing that victimless crimes should not result in imprisonment is a valid viewpoint. But calling marijuana smoking a form of political action is ridiculous.
The threat of escape doesn’t necessarily correlate with the length of the sentance imposed, or with the seriousness of the orginal crime. Escapes are a rarity. More of a threat is violence against staff members.
Most inmates just want to serve their time in peace, and probably wouldn’t escape even if the opprotunity was offered to them. Once, at a medium security prison in which my husband worked, a storm knocked down a perimeter fence. When this was discovered by the inmates, they actually ran to tell officers about the problem, and propped it back up into place. Not one tried to approach the breach.
We used to have an “honor camp” at the prison in my hometown. This was a large house which had no fences around it which housed maybe twenty inmates. (I remember once when I was a little girl, we were driving by this camp, and my mother scolded me for waving at the inmates who were sitting on lawn chairs out front. I didn’t know they were prisoners.) It was priviledged housing for trustworthy inmates (lifers included) who had exemplary conduct records. This camp was open for more than twenty years, during which there were only a couple of “walk-aways.” (One of which was an inmate who, after many years, couldn’t resist the temptation to go into town for a beer. He was “captured” on his way back to the camp.)
Staff assaults, though, happen with alarming frequency in a lot of prisons. There has been a trend in recent years for “SuperMax” prisons, which employ 23-hour-a-day lockdowns as a means of conrtolling ulta-violent offenders. However, civil liberties groups, including the ACLU, have been fighting these prisons, calling them inhumane. I don’t entirely disagree with that assesment, but I can see a need for these kinds of facilities. Some inmates simply cannot be controlled in any other way.
"Arguing that victimless crimes should not result in imprisonment is a valid viewpoint. But calling marijuana smoking a form of political action is ridiculous."
Nemo, I don’t think Evil Captor meant that drug use is a political action, but that people who are imprisoned for drug use are the “political casualties” of the so-called “War on Drugs”. It’s a documented fact that the expansion of the US prison system and 500% increase in the US prison population (in the last 30 years) is fueled by incarceration of non-violent drug offenders.
Earlier, you mentioned that this wasn’t an impartial view. What’s the “other side” of that argument?
BTW, regarding privatisation in New York - don’t forget that Rikers has been effectively privatised apart from the CO’s, and that Wackenhut runs the INS detention facility in Queens (Wackenhut is a story in and of itself - google it and founder “George Wackenhut” if you really want to get paranoid).
And the Federal Prison Industries (Unicor/FPI) you mentioned aren’t necessarily better than using prisoners for private corp. labour - remember that none of the profits goes toward offsetting the taxpayer costs of operating the prisons. From UNICOR DOESN’T LOWER TAXPAYER COSTS, IT RAISES THEM
FPI sales are $600 million annually and rising, with over $37 million in profits. Where does the money go?
I understand the difference between an action being criminalized for political reasons and people commiting crimes for political reasons. I agree that our nation’s drug laws are examples of the former. But from his post, Evil Captor includes marijuana smoking in both categories and mainly in the latter.