Current Prison System

[Oblivion]

I am rather unhappy with it.
In my opinion, people there shouldn't be doing labor, working in factories and such to at least pay for themselves, and hopefully pay back society.

Prison just punishes people, but does it help give back? No; it actually costs the society even more.
If they worked however, for free or cheap, then at least it wouldn't burden the society to punish the wrong-doers. Hopefully they could actually make a profit and have the prisoners be giving back to the community they harmed.

Thoughts?

[inlove]

hmm true but if they worked there are so many that they would cause many factory workers to be put out of their jobs i bet =[ and china's cheap labor is virtually free anyways... they sell stuff for less than it takes to make it... WEIRD..

[INFERNO]

hmm true but if they worked there are so many that they would cause many factory workers to be put out of their jobs i bet =[ and china's cheap labor is virtually free anyways... they sell stuff for less than it takes to make it... WEIRD..

China may have cheap labour, however, take a look at the massive amounts that they sell. It's akin to Bob and George each having 20 computers and trying to sell all 20 at different prices. Bob sells only 10, each for $5,000 and is left with a debt of the remaining 10. George on the other hand sells all 20, each for $3,000. Bob makes $50,000 whereas George makes $60,000. BUT, Bob now has computers left over and cannot make the maximum amount of profit.

So, is it weird? No. It's good business and intelligent thinking.

As for the current debate, I see advantages and disadvantages: the prisoners could generate money for society (good), their workings could lower the taxes for non-prisoners (good) but it tightens the job demand for certain jobs severely (bad) and it risks putting current workers out of employment either for fear of working with prisoners or just being choked out with the large incoming wave of them (bad), and somehow the prisoners will need to be monitored to ensure no further crimes are committed (need people for this, spend money for this, possibly upgrade security, all costing more money).

If the prisoners got to work at an area only for prisoners, then that would be better. There'd still be costs for security, however, the other disadvantages are eliminated. However, one more disadvantage may arise, and that is the prisoners' industry competing with other non-prisoner industries due to cheap labour. Unless of course, they produced certain products for non-prisoner industries.

[Modus Operandi]

I agree with the opinion that prisoners should be working to pay back society, but that would lead to some a**hole who hates work filing a lawsuit. Another good way to cut costs would be to make marijuana legal. Correct me if i'm wrong, but I think almost half of all prisoners today are marijuana offenders.

[INFERNO]

I agree with the opinion that prisoners should be working to pay back society, but that would lead to some a**hole who hates work filing a lawsuit.

If working becomes a law and if the guards/warden don't break the law, then on what grounds would the lawsuit be for?


Another good way to cut costs would be to make marijuana legal.

This is already in the process, such as with medicinal marijuana. But I assume you mean for usage other than medicinal. If that were the case, then would the government distribute certain amounts to various people at some cost or how would you intend to have it be made legal?


Correct me if i'm wrong, but I think almost half of all prisoners today are marijuana offenders.

Until you find a reliable and valid source showing this, then I will ignore this.

[Cromm]

...putting aside, for a moment, the whole issue of what it could do to employment rates and the nation's economy...Who would run these forced labour camps? The state, or the private companies already contracted to house imates at hundreds of for-profit prisons around the U.S.?

I am very much opposed to the private facilities already in place. Any time you make something (like having lots people in prison for long periods of time) benificial to a company's bottom dollar, you're going to get lawyers and lobyists and all sorts of company owned shills working to make it happen. It's just a bad idea in general.

Now, you want to add to this already bad idea, the potential to make profit via what is esentially slave labour, and you'll have private coporations leading the charge for longer and longer sentances for lesser and lesser crimes.

Is that really something that benefits soiciety?

I understand the whole notion of not wanting prisoners to be a drain on soiciety, but don't you think it would be a better idea to just not have as many people in prison in the first place?

I think resources would better be spent combating the causes of crime, and not the results of it.


EDIT: By the way, according Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html), over half the current population of prisoners were convicted of violent offences (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corrtyp.htm), which include "murder, negligent and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, extortion, intimidation, criminal endangerment, and other violent offenses."

[Jacobim Mugatu]

I think The best thing to do is to cut costs. give only 2 meals a day instead of 3, put 4 or 5 to one cell, get rid of the gym and basketball courts. that could cut down on space and equipment. also, execute all on death row as fast as possible Via firing squad. I also believe those serving life terms should be put on death row, and in turn, shot. the less food and the less space and the executions would not only save money on space, equipment, food, and any other cost that might have been for the dead prisoners, but it would encourage people to obey the law. Now I am not the smartest person ever so feel free to tell me how stupid my Idea is.

[Antares]

Okay, this is my notion of how it should be.

Okay, so if you are sentenced to life, after maybe...10 years, lets just kill you. That takes care of the issue of having a botched case and you have long enough to appeal.
If you are sentanced to something less, then you need to sit in a square jail cell and sit there.
No TV. No nothing. Sit there and think about what you did.
Umm, and then if you do somethin less than a felony or whatever, then you can go to a workhouse that is similar to jails today. They have amenties and stuff but you need to work your ass off.

I mean, i am tough. I believe in tough punishment. I don't want to waste our tim efilling people in their jail cells until they die. Just end it. Save some time and money.

I dont want to sound insensitive, but this is my idea as of yet. Prone to change for whatever realization I have.

[Bougainvillea]

Okay, this is my notion of how it should be.

Okay, so if you are sentenced to life, after maybe...10 years, lets just kill you.

I must say John, that's fucked up but true.
I agree with your post.
Prisoners have such lenience in those places if they behave.
"Okay, lets forget about that little girl you raped. You've been good so you go to the community wing."
I've seen documentaries with that in them. It's ridiculous.

[theOperaGhost]

Okay, this is my notion of how it should be.

Okay, so if you are sentenced to life, after maybe...10 years, lets just kill you. That takes care of the issue of having a botched case and you have long enough to appeal.
If you are sentanced to something less, then you need to sit in a square jail cell and sit there.
No TV. No nothing. Sit there and think about what you did.
Umm, and then if you do somethin less than a felony or whatever, then you can go to a workhouse that is similar to jails today. They have amenties and stuff but you need to work your ass off.

I mean, i am tough. I believe in tough punishment. I don't want to waste our tim efilling people in their jail cells until they die. Just end it. Save some time and money.

I dont want to sound insensitive, but this is my idea as of yet. Prone to change for whatever realization I have.

I agree with this.

[Sage]

Okay, so if you are sentenced to life, after maybe...10 years, lets just kill you. That takes care of the issue of having a botched case and you have long enough to appeal.

There have been cases of people spending longer than ten years in prison and even eventually being released and only then proving their innocence. The idea of the government people, as well, is why I oppose the death sentence. It does not matter who you are nor what you've done- No one has the right to take away the life of another.

Edit: Pardon me, I suppose after posting this that this may be slightly off topic.

[Antares]

There have been cases of people spending longer than ten years in prison and even eventually being released and only then proving their innocence. The idea of the government people, as well, is why I oppose the death sentence. It does not matter who you are nor what you've done- No one has the right to take away the life of another.

Edit: Pardon me, I suppose after posting this that this may be slightly off topic.

I totally understand where you are coming from. I know that there are cases where people are proven innocent after a really long time but when I hear these reports of "our prisons are filling up, we have so much crime, omg what are wwe gonna do" I think to myself simple. Kill the old guys and get them out. More room now. Don't start not sending people to jail because they will remain in cycle and do the same crap becuase their punsihment isnt realistic.

How about this, kill the people that have pleaded guilty to murder.
That way they admitted they were guilty and then wait a couple years to make sure they weren't sticking up for someone else, etc.

[thedudeman]

i think prison should be a mix of punishment and of labor
it should be a rehab center that spits people out as more civilized and not freaks who have been raped and torn apart. my cousin went to jail for something as simple as selling some weed, and he came out and hes never been the same, he has random triggers and it makes his life hard as hell, how is that helping anybody
they should change the name detention center, to brain crushing rape factory

[Sage]

i think prison should be a mix of punishment and of labor
it should be a rehab center that spits people out as more civilized and not freaks who have been raped and torn apart. my cousin went to jail for something as simple as selling some weed, and he came out and hes never been the same, he has random triggers and it makes his life hard as hell, how is that helping anybody
they should change the name detention center, to brain crushing rape factory

Or perhaps instead of just killing people who are a nuisance to society, we look for ways to reduce the number of people resorting to this behavior in the first place. You can think of a million different punishments for a million different things, but if you can't change how people think in society and get to the heart of the problem (criminals), then nothing will ever change.

I still stand firm on my position that killing or destroying that which is inconvenient to you is fruitless, as is a prison system based solely on punishment with little in the way of rehabilitation and/or community service. Not to say our current system is exactly like that, of course.

[INFERNO]

i think prison should be a mix of punishment and of labor
it should be a rehab center that spits people out as more civilized and not freaks who have been raped and torn apart. my cousin went to jail for something as simple as selling some weed, and he came out and hes never been the same, he has random triggers and it makes his life hard as hell, how is that helping anybody
they should change the name detention center, to brain crushing rape factory

Nice of you to refer to some people as "freaks". So I assume that these "freaks" either are not released from prison and their problems only intensify or they are simply killed as though they were a weed that is unwanted and plucked out of the ground and destroyed. This doesn't seem to be a great idea at all.

You ask, "how is that helping anybody" in reference to your cousin. Well I ask you this, how is it helping anybody if these "freaks" are either killed because they're unwanted or they're left in longer because they're unwanted.

I think The best thing to do is to cut costs. give only 2 meals a day instead of 3, put 4 or 5 to one cell, get rid of the gym and basketball courts. that could cut down on space and equipment. also, execute all on death row as fast as possible Via firing squad. I also believe those serving life terms should be put on death row, and in turn, shot. the less food and the less space and the executions would not only save money on space, equipment, food, and any other cost that might have been for the dead prisoners, but it would encourage people to obey the law. Now I am not the smartest person ever so feel free to tell me how stupid my Idea is.

I agree with putting more people to one cell, however, the gym and basketball courts allow the prisoners to not come out unhealthy and scraggly.

Killing people as fast as possible on death-row I may be in support of but it depends on how fast you're talking about: a few days, weeks, months?

Your idea seems to revolve around saving money for society. So why not encourage some forced labour and the prisoners can allow society to get some money. If that is the case, then I think it's reasonable to allow for three meals a day so there is more energy available and they can get some nutrition. What good are prisoners who are scraggly and not very strong yet we are to have them to intense labour? I can understand removing the gym and basketball courts if they have the labour.

However, what I think should happen is that if the prisoners show good behavior, they don't get more rewards and such. They're in there for punishment not to get rewards if they're a good little boy or girl.

...putting aside, for a moment, the whole issue of what it could do to employment rates and the nation's economy...Who would run these forced labour camps? The state, or the private companies already contracted to house imates at hundreds of for-profit prisons around the U.S.?

Possibly the state.


I am very much opposed to the private facilities already in place. Any time you make something (like having lots people in prison for long periods of time) benificial to a company's bottom dollar, you're going to get lawyers and lobyists and all sorts of company owned shills working to make it happen. It's just a bad idea in general.

Then have it so that it is state-run and not so a company can benefit and all others don't benefit.


Now, you want to add to this already bad idea, the potential to make profit via what is esentially slave labour, and you'll have private coporations leading the charge for longer and longer sentances for lesser and lesser crimes.



I understand the whole notion of not wanting prisoners to be a drain on soiciety, but don't you think it would be a better idea to just not have as many people in prison in the first place?

Obviously it would be better to have fewer people in prison in the first place but if someone violates the law then they deserve punishment, just like any time a rule is broken. We cant stop the crime from being committed. We can possibly have the criminals be in prison for shorter sentences but that seems rather bad because they're then not getting any rehabilitation and punishment that they were meant to get.


I think resources would better be spent combating the causes of crime, and not the results of it.

There are countless causes of crime and no matter how much a certain area gets money invested in, if someone wants something but cant get it, then they may commit a crime. It's not so simple in that the causes are always known, sometimes they are unknown.

But if we don't bother with the punishments and rehabilitation, then what's the point of having criminal courts and such? If you want to focus on the causes of crime and not on the results of it, and since we're not perfect, what happens when people continue to break the law?


EDIT: By the way, according Bureau of Justice Statistics, over half the current population of prisoners were convicted of violent offences, which include "murder, negligent and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, extortion, intimidation, criminal endangerment, and other violent offenses."

Well this part of your post seems rather oddly placed as if there are so many people who are doing these crimes, then if we do invest money to determine and address the causes of the crime, that process is going to take a lot of time. So in the mean time, while all these crimes and other crimes are being committed, what are we to do with the criminals?

But I'm not entirely sure what the point is that you're trying to make by this part of your post.

[Liam21]

The current prison system is a load of bull. I mean, what message are they trying to send that some guy who lost everything can starve and die, while rapists and killers get free food, clothing, and shelter. Isn't that just encouraging crime?

Edit: I say punishment should be the old way, "An eye for an eye".

[Jacobim Mugatu]

Liam21, I think that an eye for an eye is not enough. We must discourage any criminal from ever thinking he can benefit or come out even by breaking the law. If a man steals 2 million dollars, must he only give back 2 million dollars. And someone who uses Illegal drugs, who determines what is equal. They don't deserve what is fair or even, they deserve what is necessary to discourage others from committing crimes.

INFERNO, thank you for agreeing with me as much as you did. I must criticize your Idea of forced labor. that would drive normal working citizens away from the jobs the criminals would be doing because of the incredible low cost of the forced labor workforce. I also would like to add that the delay of a prisoner's execution should be no more than a year. If they can't find anything to prove or even suggest their innocence by then then they probably have no case.

If any of my comments seem unintelligent (which they probably are) feel free to criticize them in any way you wish.

[INFERNO]

Liam21, I think that an eye for an eye is not enough. We must discourage any criminal from ever thinking he can benefit or come out even by breaking the law. If a man steals 2 million dollars, must he only give back 2 million dollars. And someone who uses Illegal drugs, who determines what is equal. They don't deserve what is fair or even, they deserve what is necessary to discourage others from committing crimes.

That makes no sense when you say if he steals 2 million then he needs to give back 2 million yet you then also say they don't deserve what is fair nor even. Giving back the amount you stole is even and is fair. If you're suggesting only certain crimes get uneven and unfair punishments, then who decides what those crimes are? And how do we ensure the crimes that do get even and fair sentences don't eventually get uneven and unfair sentences?

But when you say they deserve what is necessary to discourage others, then how far do you intend to go? Suppose someone beats another guy up (the guy ends up living though), so the criminal should get 20 years for that? The problem with that is it allows others to take advantage of the criminal system if it were to be set up this way. It also would then mean that other sentences would be completely unrealistic.

And one other thing, what if the criminal has committed his/her first crime and hasn't done any others. Suppose that first crime isn't a very major one. Should he/she get completely unfair treatment?

The problem with this notion of unfair and uneven treatment is that it can damage the prisoners even more and so when they are released, they're going to be even more affected. The idea of prison is to allow them to pay their debt back to society and for rehabilitation or punishment. But by making the sentences unrealistically unfair and uneven, you're going past rehabilitating them and they've already paid their debt, so what is the purpose of punishing them even more? It seems rather unfair though that someone who commits a minor crime would get the same sentence as someone who, in present time, commits a major crime. If there is a minor crime, then a minor sentence is in order. If you're going to have unrealistic punishments, then are you also going to have unrealistic laws?

You mentioned before that you wanted to save money but with these longer sentences and such, that's not going to be happening.


INFERNO, thank you for agreeing with me as much as you did. I must criticize your Idea of forced labor. that would drive normal working citizens away from the jobs the criminals would be doing because of the incredible low cost of the forced labor workforce.

That is true, however, it is an effective way for them to pay their debt back to society. On the other hand, we could just lock them up and have no forced labour but how does that allow for them to pay their debt back? It allows for the punishment and rehabilitation.


I also would like to add that the delay of a prisoner's execution should be no more than a year. If they can't find anything to prove or even suggest their innocence by then then they probably have no case.

I may agree with this, I'll have to think about it some more though.

[Jacobim Mugatu]

Sorry for my above post. it was rather stupid. I think that many crimes punishments should be increased, but "fair". I am not saying everyone is going to be even Steven (except in murder cases, and sometimes not even then, like of some dude kills 3 people. he only has 1 life.) The criminal must always pay a little more for obvious reasons, except murder cases. I don't think that the guy who drove once with an expired license should be locked away forever, that's not really a criminal. that person should pay a fine and that's it. but violent a criminal who is obviously not being rehabilitated should have a more severe punishment, and depending on the nature of that persons crimes and if he has repeated offenses, he may have to be put down. that's for hardened criminals though, who are Helpless in every way.

About the forced labor, If there was to be any. it would be for jobs that normal people really can't or have difficulty doing. I also think that only those who work should get full 3 meals. those who don't work, don't get full meals, and don't get to be fit when they leave prison. I still don't like the idea, but these are terms I would be acceptable with if such a thing came to pass.

its actually pretty late here in the Bay Area, and I didn't think this post or the other post through very well, so if they seem stupid or not thought out, that's because they are, mostly. Also understand I HATE typing, so I don't put down a lot of my ideas, and I don't always explain things well enough because I am kinda lazy, so keep that in mind and please don't think i am completely retarded. thanks. I guess.

[INFERNO]

Sorry for my above post. it was rather stupid. I think that many crimes punishments should be increased, but "fair". I am not saying everyone is going to be even Steven (except in murder cases, and sometimes not even then, like of some dude kills 3 people. he only has 1 life.) The criminal must always pay a little more for obvious reasons, except murder cases. I don't think that the guy who drove once with an expired license should be locked away forever, that's not really a criminal. that person should pay a fine and that's it.

So within this post, you've suggested to me that you have an alternate definition of a criminal than the traditional one of where a person breaks a law and in doing so commits a crime is dubbed a criminal. Please define your definition of a criminal then.

You haven't exactly shown the line between when one crime deserves unfair and unreasonable punishment and when another crime does deserve fair and reasonable punishment.

but violent a criminal who is obviously not being rehabilitated should have a more severe punishment, and depending on the nature of that persons crimes and if he has repeated offenses, he may have to be put down. that's for hardened criminals though, who are Helpless in every way.

I can see the rationale in why a repeat offender who hasn't seem to have been rehabilitated would need more punishment or alternate punishment.

However, killing him because he is a nuisance to society would include all criminals (going by the definition I gave above) as all of them would, some respect, be a nuisance or harm to society.


About the forced labor, If there was to be any. it would be for jobs that normal people really can't or have difficulty doing.

Technically a medical doctor has difficulty doing their job at times.


I also think that only those who work should get full 3 meals. those who don't work, don't get full meals, and don't get to be fit when they leave prison. I still don't like the idea, but these are terms I would be acceptable with if such a thing came to pass.

But wouldn't all criminals be allowed to have the opportunity to work or would only some? And what is the rationality for only those some?

[Ripplemagne]

Cromm and Inferno already took this to the bank, but there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of how court procedures and prison works, so I'll elucidate.

Rehabilitation doesn't work. You may have a case here or there where someone comes out as a productive member of society, but these are generally the same individuals who will spend their times in the library, reading and who will make the effort anyway. Those who want to, will. Those who don't, won't.

I am a proponent of public monitoring. Which, in essence, means security cameras in public areas. Some people feel this is an invasion of privacy, but guess what? When you're in public, people can see you. This may be a bit expensive to organize, but I believe the long term advantage of watering down an individual's morale to commit a crime will speak wonders. This goes hand-in-hand with what Cromm said about keeping fewer people in prison to begin with.

However, that's as far as my Conservative views on this matter goes. I don't believe in the Death Penalty under any circumstance. First of all, breaking our own law to punish another for breaking the law is a tad hypocritical, no? Yes, you can make the argument that it's an enforcement of said law, but it's an unnecessary enforcement (as opposed to a cop shooting a suspect with a gun, which is necessary given the circumstances). The mentality of the death sentence is that it gives semblance to the victim.

Since when do we dictate the punishment of a criminal on the feelings of the victim? That's an illogical and dangerous road to tread on because, if I may slippery slope for a moment, would lead to a pick pocket getting forty lashes and life under tortured circumstances. It is not the place of the victim to decide how the criminal should be punished.

Look up Sacco and Vanzetti. I'm not going to tell you what it's about. Just look it up.

And economically speaking, it's cheaper to abolish the Death Penalty. (http://www.wgal.com/money/19050326/detail.html)

And canning those who plead guilty would be counterproductive to any growth for the same reason as above. The reason we have pleas is to put an end to otherwise extensive trials. If you do that, no one will plead guilty and the courts will be tied up forever.