The Prison Thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Prison Thread

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

I am honestly disgusted by the American prison system. The people in the work programs are basically slaves, and everyone is just cool with that. I worked out the math once on exactly how many black people in America are involved in unfree labor and it ended up being something like 3/4ths of the number of slaves that where in America in 1860.

That's some real social progress right there.

# ¿ Jul 26, 2010 02:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 01:19

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

Qublai Qhan posted:

I could always be wrong here, but I'm almost positive that mandatory convict labor is non-existent in the US. It's true that convicts are not paid particularly well for optional labor, and maybe there are reasons to pay better, but I think comparing it to slavery is probably going several steps too far.

It isn't "mandatory" but the system is set up in such a way as to coerce people into it. Do you think any free American would work for $0.50 an hour in a highly abusive environment? The choice is there for the same reason they are given a pittance for their work, to put a shiny veneer of "not slavery, really we pay them and everything!" over top of what clearly is.

I don't think you can call it "voluntary" when nothing about their situation is so. It's like making jay walking have a penalty of 100 years in prison, or eating a big pile of poo poo. Eating the poo poo isn't mandatory, but few will choose not to partake.

# ¿ Jul 26, 2010 02:48

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

mew force shoelace posted:

Does any other country have anything like our sex offender registry stuff? Criminal for life stuff for any crime for that matter.

It's only a matter of time before the government starts considering a "final solution" for sex offenders. I'm only kidding slightly here. America doesn't seem to mind doing absolutely morally repugnant things to people as long as they "deserve it".

Heck on this very forum there is a crowd that seriously thinks that the mass sterilizing of the poor is a great idea. It's kind of a shame that comparing people to Nazis is so played out as to become ineffective, the analogies are getting pretty apt.

# ¿ Jul 26, 2010 15:39

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

21stCentury posted:

Wow, really?

How can slavery not be considered "Cruel and unusual punishment"?

Edit: Would it be possible for an amendment to be passed withholding first amendment rights from Muslims, for example? Do new amendments overrule older ones?

Yeah, they kind of have to otherwise the 18th amendment would still be in effect and selling alcohol would be illegal. Amendments trump everything in the US, if there was enough support for it they could author one that trumps elections and makes the country a monarchy.

# ¿ Jul 26, 2010 19:13

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

Y-Hat posted:

Your legacy is complete.

(I think I got that line wrong, I'm a bad Frisky Dingo fan)

We shouldn't be "tough on crime" in this country, we should be smart on crime. Of course, that will never catch on.

The whole "tough on crime" bit is a very christian attitude. The whole redemption through suffering concept. The thing is though, that doesn't make society better and it's not like your saving their souls for some after life.

What we really need is some good old behavioral modification studies. Set up each prison in a different way, say one that is punitive and one that forces you to attend collage, and one that gives a lot of free time, or WoW, or any of a million things. Try everything (except cruel stuff obviously) and collect recidivism data (these people are already being tracked for parole purposes, why not for science?). The best systems will boil to the top and can be implemented nation wide.

# ¿ Jul 26, 2010 21:09

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

Fluoride Jones posted:

From what I've read, it seems that rehabilitation results in lower recidivism whereas harsher punishments (like death) result in high recidivism rates. Unfortunately, I don't think rehabilitation will ever catch on in this country because that would mean upgrading prison conditions to provide decent education and libraries, as well as programs that help to destroy an 'us and them' gang mentality that is so prevalent in prisons. Obviously, all of this stuff would cost a lot of money, money that no taxpayer would want to pay. I'm not saying they wouldn't want to pay it because of the expenses, but rather what it would go toward. Some people already have qualms about paying for the horrible conditions in prisons already, and they probably aren't going to want to pay for stuff that might give convicts a safe environment to serve their time in. It all relates back to the 'tough on crime' mentality.

This attitude is really counter productive. I wish people would just think these things through instead of jumping on hysterical bandwagons when someone in their community gets raped or something.

If you can cut the prison population in half by slashing recidivism rates then it's a cost savings, even if it costs more per prisoner. Not to mention free men working will be paying taxes (though I guess in this economy they wouldn't find jobs anyway). Also there is the whole not turning people into dangerous career criminals from horrible conditions and then setting them loose.

# ¿ Jul 26, 2010 21:23

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

taremva posted:

I don't mean any offence, but for a country which shouts "FREEDOM" I'm really starting to wonder.

Just being curious, what is the general opinion of the level of freedom in other countries, for the average American? Does a large part of the population believe that other countries are more oppressed? (Thinking about western/northern Europe mainly, not trying to compare with north Koreaor something).
And what do the Americans here think?

America has the kind of freedom that the Roman Republic had. If you are a wealthy enfranchised citizen then things are pretty good and you're freer than some place with a dictator, but those benefits don't extend to everyone.

Ironically a Roman house slave would probably be much better off than someone in an American prison, and with time they could earn their freedom and right to vote.

Rutibex fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jul 28, 2010

# ¿ Jul 28, 2010 18:44

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

21stCentury posted:

I don't think it'll ever happen. I'm in a small minority who believe we should forgive murderers when they've done their time. Even Karla Homolka.

The issue people have with Homolka is that she received a very light sentence because of her plea bargain made before the video evidence was uncovered. Many people feel cheated out of justice.

Of course some guilty people have to slip through the cracks for the system to work properly. If exceptions are made every time a result is unpalatable by the public you just end up with mob rule, which is really the opposite of justice.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2010 19:19

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

Farking Bastage posted:

Incoming

I had a bit of a revelation this morning. One of those things not unlike, say the scenic view in Montana; glaringly obvious to an outsider, but so commonplace to the locals that hardly anyone notices.

Everywhere I go, every day, SOMEONE is being detained by police. If you aren't actively handing your papers over, then you're on camera. Everywhere. Get up right now and go to the quickie store. Chances are you will see someone either pulled over or being followed by police. When you walk into the store, you're on camera. Your credit/debit card transaction is being logged and stored away for perusal at any time by police. On the way home, as you pass a police officer who has just finished detaining someone else, he's already ran your tag number through a database which returns who you are where you live, your history, and god knows what else. He either pulls you over for whatever reason he self justifies, or goes after the next poor bastard that just happens to be out in public. You get home and flip on the TV without thinking about who's currently compiling a database of what you watch how long you watch and matching it to all other information. EVERY BIT OF THIS INFORMATION CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU BY POLICE.

We already live in an Orwellian hell. It's right there in front of our faces in every single daily activity every minute of every day, yet hardly anyone notices.

This is not a free country, and it has not been for decades. I think I may go hide somewhere now. Holy poo poo.

You're just looking at it the wrong way. It can be fun if you imagine yourself as the clever hacker protagonist of a cyberpunk novel :science:

It is true that today there are more cameras than ever, but that goes both ways. If I see a police officer beating someone unnecessarily I can pull out my phone and record him in HD, then upload the video to youtube over 3g before he can even ask me to stop. Youtube then updates my Twitter and Facebook accounts automatically.

Rutibex fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Jul 30, 2010

# ¿ Jul 30, 2010 19:06

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

Whisker Biscuit posted:

Then the police come raid your house, steal your computers and do their damnedest to send you to prison for years.

Your a cyberpunk protagonist! You live in an abandoned access tunnel with internet "borrowed" using a series of well hidden mesh wifi repeaters from a local bar. You do all your transactions online with prepaid disposable credit cards bought with cash. You make money writing essays for high school students online and selling crap you find in local flea markets on eBay :tinfoil:

Yeah the future is going to be a bleak surveillance dystopia, but you have to go at it like a Hiroaki Protagonist not a Winston Smith.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2010 22:57

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

Woozy posted:

Cross-posted from Cops on the Beat so as not to derail:

I think there is good reason to suspect that a large minority of prisoners have not actually committed a crime. Our ridiculous bail and plea bargain system mean simply being accused of a crime is often enough to destroy ones life without any respect to something like due process or whathaveyou.

But the thing is if you try to understand criminality and the prison population in terms of "what these people have done" it never matches up right. You have to look at criminality rather as a class populated according to "who they are" in order to get the numbers to match up. Like, it does seem to be the case that almost everyone has broken a federal law at some point in their lives. There is just an amazing amount of things that are against the law to the point that enforcement is mostly a joke because no one even has the ability to know what is and is not a crime. The key is largely how we are to construe the class "criminals" as opposed to the class "law-abiders", which thanks in part to the rhetorical strategies of the gun control lobby and "tough on crime" politicians, has taken on significant semantic baggage that is much more complex to unpack than simply whether or not one has committed a crime (or even a violent crime). I think it should be very obvious by now that regardless of how you choose to analyze the concept of a "criminal", in practice the term is purely political, and universally understood to mean "the lower class"--in other words, the poor, minority groups, disenfranchised youth, whatever people who aren't middle class suburban WASPs and higher do is what criminals do.

And this largely explains crimes of "public order" and "vice", which almost always have two versions--there's like a real serious charge which we might have a legitimate case for prosecuting as a matter of public interest, and then there are things that are a bit sketchier. It's very easy to be guilty of a crime of vice or public order just as a matter of course in certain parts of the country, and it's not at all clear that if this species of law were to stop being enforced tomorrow then civilization as we know it would collapse. So the obvious example is that there is probably a good case to enforce laws against drug trafficking, but drug abuse is highly debatable. Its clearly in the public interest to prevent human trafficking, but prostitution again is just a bit more fuzzy. Drunk driving yes, but public drunkenness? Eh. Crime is just a tricky thing like that. It's a much more elastic, fuzzy kind of concept than simply "whatever the law says". In fact it is perilously easy to fall into the class of "criminal" according to the casual, commonly understood use of the word even when you have not, strictly speaking, committed a crime. And the reverse is also true--plenty of people who are guilty of seriously heinous and costly crimes are not deemed to be criminals in the typical person's estimation.

So in a really insidious sense, the majority of people in prison are criminals--like 99% even. Whether, in some legal sense or factual sense, they have committed a crime is a different story, and that's the disparity that needs to be accounted for. But it doesn't do any good to go through all the cases and talk about "have these prisoners, as a matter of law or fact, commited a crime?", because that just isn't what the criminal justice system is interested in. Crime is not an act but an identity.

I'm not normally a fan of Ayn Rand, but she had a point with this one:

quote:

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

In this modern age everyone is a criminal. There are too many laws for it not to be so and too many of those laws are for things that under the right circumstances aren't harmful to society.

The real law of the land is class. Ever notice that when a poor black man gets caught with drugs he goes away for many years, but when a white celebrity is in the same situation they get probation and rehab? Or the man who steals car stereos getting 10 years when the banker who steals billions gets 3? Heck even the disproportional amount of blacks in prison. When everyone is a criminal if you look deep enough going to jail depends on if the police/prosecutor/judge like and feel sympathy for you. Police are middle class and judges upper middle so they sympathize with their own.

The real upper class, the top 0.1% with financial and political power are mostly immune from the law. Just ask Richard Nixon or Dick Cheney, or any senator who enjoys institutional graft. An aristocracy by any other name...

Rutibex fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Aug 9, 2010

# ¿ Aug 9, 2010 17:29

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

21stCentury posted:

Then again, i wonder, what does a banker have to gain or give back to society that needs him in prison? A Banker who steals billions and is found out is pretty hosed. What does jail time do to him?

Then again, I guess this doesn't work if the American Criminal Justice System is officially punitive and not rehabilitative, but I still wonder, where do white collar criminals go in a rehabilitative prison system?

Personally I would have that banker meet with and apologize to every single person he screwed over with insider trading or whatever. Look them in the eyes and say: "Yes I destroyed your retirement fund, which you worked your entire life for in order to add a small fraction to my own wealth". I think it would be an eye opening experience.

# ¿ Aug 9, 2010 18:36

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

mugrim posted:

I think you completely overestimate their sympathy and empathy. These aren't exactly touchy feely people who give a poo poo about the lives of anyone outside their circle. They typically knew what they were doing and did it anyways. They answer every societal problem with a mantra of personal responsibility. They may say all you have them say, but really they'll be thinking "Well you're a loving idiot".

I disagree. Humans are social animals, empathy for people is innate. Screwing over "someone" who to you is just a number on a spread sheet if psychologically different than screwing someone you have sat down and talked to. Unless white collar criminals are disproportionally sociopaths (and I wouldn't doubt if that was the case, but would need to see some evidence) then it would have an effect. Not to mention that in such cases the sheer volume of people you would have to apologize to would have to have an impact.

Painting the rich as monsters with no morals is exactly the same bias as the rich painting the poor as worthless leeches. When it comes down to it they are as human as anyone and as bound by luck an circumstances as anyone else.

You work in restorative justice correct? I assume that involves confronting criminals with the impact of their crimes. How many regret what they have done afterwords?

# ¿ Aug 9, 2010 19:58

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

21stCentury posted:

I'm expressing myself pretty spectacularly terribly today.

What I'm trying to say is, I don't really see how you can rehabilitate people guilty of high caliber white collar crimes, like the "the banker who steals billions gets 3 [years]".

So i'm wondering what you wonderful people think should be done with white collar criminals in a rehabilitative justice system, since i have little trouble imagining what would be done with gang members, burglars and murderers.

I'm not saying white collar criminals need to go uncorrected as much as i don't see where they fit in a purely rehabilitative system.

People are trying to point out that there isn't a huge difference in the mind set of these people. What is the difference between a gang and a country club besides level of funding and success?

If the system works for poor people it should work for rich people, because they are both people and there is really a lot of common ground.

# ¿ Aug 9, 2010 20:37

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

Doddery Meerkat posted:

Seriously all of your posts on this only make sense if you don't believe in free will. I mean that's the only reason you wouldn't criticize the people who have all the power as monsters when they do monstrous things.

I don't believe in free will. I am a student of the physical sciences, when I look at a problem like this I see a series of interacting deterministic systems.

I think blaming specific people for societal problems is the same kind of anthropomorphizing projection that made our ancestors believe that Zeus brought the lightning when it rained. Peoples behavior is caused by a very complex system of circumstances, the vast majority they have no say in. This is true of the rich and poor alike.

The concept of free will is actually how we got into the mess with the prison system to begin with. No one would think that a malfunctioning computer "deserved" suffering for it's errors, they would just repair it in the most efficient manner possible.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2010 22:44

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

Razor Craze posted:

From what I've observed, if we replace the computer in your analogy with a person, there seems to be a strong compulsion in the consciousness of mainstream America that although a malfunctioning person might not necessarily deserve to suffer, there's no time, inclination or compassion to repair them. It's just easier to throw them away; label them as broken and focus on "working" models. To mix the metaphor further: prisons become an industrialized and convenient dumping site for the broken and malfunctioning units amongst us.

I'm not taking a piss on your point, but rather I'm supporting the idea that both the computer in your analogy and the very real way our society views prisoners, have one terrible thing in common: they're disposable if we can't muster an effort to repair them.

I'll admit that this is the first time I've ventured to post in any of these Prison threads. However, I've read them all, thoroughly. And the two things that keep coming up over and over again for me as I read them are the blind hubris and utter lack of compassion that seem to fuel the engines of our vengeance. If we're not incarcerating each other out of self-superior emotionalism and barbaric revenge, then we're incarcerating each other out of sheer gross indifference.

I'm not sure exactly how just yet, but because of these threads and the raw and heartrending commentary by HG, I decided a year ago I'm going to try to make some sort of difference. I can't just watch people become this disposable.

Yeah I don't understand the attitude either. Sure living in a tribe where you eat the weak might seem good when your hungry and someone just broke their leg, but you or a loved on one might be the next victim of circumstance to be eaten. It's better for everyone to live in a society where we take care of each other.

baquerd posted:

We can't repair humans very well at all though, so we just poke them until they work right or break completely.

Prison isn't even an honest attempt.

Rutibex fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Aug 11, 2010

# ¿ Aug 11, 2010 14:24

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

Sir John Falstaff posted:

This is new: 200-inmate riot at Folsom Prison. Seven inmates wound up in the hospital after guards opened fire.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11118897

"I'm stuck in Folsom prison, and time keeps draggin' on. . ."

There is over 2.3 million people in prisons around the US, the US military only has 2.8 million personnel. I wonder what would happen if one of these riots was successful and a modern day Spartacus emerged. In Roman times they weren't able to quash the rebellion before it went out of hand because the legions where occupied fighting two foreign wars.....

# ¿ Aug 29, 2010 20:11

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

SpaceDrake posted:

The numbers are somewhat deceptive there. Spartacus was able to arm his troops to a (relatively) equal level to his Roman army competitors; the US army has access to resources that a widescale prison rebellion can, realistically, never hope to attain.

That said, even a statewide coordinated prison rebellion in a place like California or Texas would be astoundingly destructive.

Quite true, in the end they wouldn't have chance (as Spartacus didn't) but the military would be very reluctant to start carpet bombing US cities to flush out rebels. It would be extremely hard for them to operate in the way they are accustomed.

# ¿ Aug 29, 2010 20:56

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

CH3-CH2-OH posted:

While I understand what you guys are saying, I have to respectfully disagree. On one hand it is kinda satisfying thinking about prisoners breaking out and causing mass destruction as a form of vengeance against the society that has spurned them. At the same time, I don't think anything would crush the prisoner's rights movement more than a widespread, violent insurrection.

You mean the Army wouldn't be able to brutally murder whomever they see fit? What a shame

I'm not really cheering for such an outcome, I abhor violence of any kind. I just think it's something to consider when you oppress large masses of people they tend to rebel.

# ¿ Aug 29, 2010 21:31

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

s0meb0dy0 posted:

The part about judges not convicting because of federal sentencing guidelines made me think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lDr3DQnHo

The guy makes a great point about how we don't punish people until BAM someone gets slapped with 10 years in prison for the same thing that people get away with every day.

This guy is brilliant, and no one will ever listen to him. He has a clear and logical plan for reducing the prison population and crime. Unfortunately prison isn't a tool for reducing crime, it has no specific purpose. Many interests enjoy prisons existence and most have no incentive for their populations to be reduced.

Prison guard unions for example, or owners of private prisons have an oposite incentive. Families of victims, and victims rights organizations likewise enjoy large prisons. Prosecutors would much rather put away one person for 25 years than 25 people for 1 year, it's 25x more work and adds less to their prestige. Businesses that use prison (slave) labor don't want less workers. Local politicians love the extra "constituents" and jobs for their community.

Rutibex fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Aug 30, 2010

# ¿ Aug 30, 2010 16:21

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

lonelywurm posted:

This is the big one. I remember an ask/tell thread with a ~20 year old goon who'd spent a year and a half in jail in Texas for felony vandalism (apparently as a result of writing on his high school bathroom's wall) and couldn't even get a job making fries because of it. Simply put, felons are going to have a much harder time doing the poo poo that we expect of them - getting a job, apartment, and generally not committing crimes any more because of that felony on the ol' record.

That's pretty much how the system is designed. It's kind of :tinfoil:

to say so but look at how the incentives are structured. A whole lot of people get paid a whole lot of money the more prisoners there are. These are the same people who are in charge of the prison environment.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to determine that this will result in harsh initial sentences to get people into the system, and almost impossible to surmount obstacles to getting out of it.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2010 15:51

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

flux_core posted:

I'm kind of trying to orient this thread towards the private for-profit prison industry which makes its money off of scamming parents, social services and mental health providers by commoditizing children and then torturing and brainwashing them for years.

It kind of fits, and I was hoping to stir up discussion, not use it as a brick-bat against you. I'm sorry if you received it that way.

I was also a bit amped up expecting someone to act like a complete Neanderthal about "tuff love" but I guess teenagers being raped, forced to soil themselves and brainwashed while being told it's for their own good scared away everyone from the thread.

If that's an area you want to explore I feel the need to mention this jem:

Judges Plead Guilty in Scheme to Jail Youths for Profit
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html

quote:

At worst, Hillary Transue thought she might get a stern lecture when she appeared before a judge for building a spoof MySpace page mocking the assistant principal at her high school in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. She was a stellar student who had never been in trouble, and the page stated clearly at the bottom that it was just a joke.

Instead, the judge sentenced her to three months at a juvenile detention center on a charge of harassment.

She was handcuffed and taken away as her stunned parents stood by.

�I felt like I had been thrown into some surreal sort of nightmare,� said Hillary, 17, who was sentenced in 2007. �All I wanted to know was how this could be fair and why the judge would do such a thing.�

The answers became a bit clearer on Thursday as the judge, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., and a colleague, Michael T. Conahan, appeared in federal court in Scranton, Pa., to plead guilty to wire fraud and income tax fraud for taking more than $2.6 million in kickbacks to send teenagers to two privately run youth detention centers run by PA Child Care and a sister company, Western PA Child Care.

While prosecutors say that Judge Conahan, 56, secured contracts for the two centers to house juvenile offenders, Judge Ciavarella, 58, was the one who carried out the sentencing to keep the centers filled.

�In my entire career, I�ve never heard of anything remotely approaching this,� said Senior Judge Arthur E. Grim, who was appointed by the State Supreme Court this week to determine what should be done with the estimated 5,000 juveniles who have been sentenced by Judge Ciavarella since the scheme started in 2003. Many of them were first-time offenders and some remain in detention.

The case has shocked Luzerne County, an area in northeastern Pennsylvania that has been battered by a loss of industrial jobs and the closing of most of its anthracite coal mines.

And it raised concerns about whether juveniles should be required to have counsel either before or during their appearances in court and whether juvenile courts should be open to the public or child advocates.

If the court agrees to the plea agreement, both judges will serve 87 months in federal prison and resign from the bench and bar. They are expected to be sentenced in the next several months. Lawyers for both men declined to comment.

Since state law forbids retirement benefits to judges convicted of a felony while in office, the judges would also lose their pensions.

With Judge Conahan serving as president judge in control of the budget and Judge Ciavarella overseeing the juvenile courts, they set the kickback scheme in motion in December 2002, the authorities said.

They shut down the county-run juvenile detention center, arguing that it was in poor condition, the authorities said, and maintained that the county had no choice but to send detained juveniles to the newly built private detention centers.

Prosecutors say the judges tried to conceal the kickbacks as payments to a company they control in Florida.

Though he pleaded guilty to the charges Thursday, Judge Ciavarella has denied sentencing juveniles who did not deserve it or sending them to the detention centers in a quid pro quo with the centers.

But Assistant United States Attorney Gordon A. Zubrod said after the hearing that the government continues to charge a quid pro quo.

�We�re not negotiating that, no,� Mr. Zubrod said. �We�re not backing off.�

No charges have been filed against executives of the detention centers. Prosecutors said the investigation into the case was continuing.

For years, youth advocacy groups complained that Judge Ciavarella was unusually harsh. He sent a quarter of his juvenile defendants to detention centers from 2002 to 2006, compared with a state rate of 1 in 10. He also routinely ignored requests for leniency made by prosecutors and probation officers.

�The juvenile system, by design, is intended to be a less punitive system than the adult system, and yet here were scores of children with very minor infractions having their lives ruined,� said Marsha Levick, a lawyer with the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center.

�There was a culture of intimidation surrounding this judge and no one was willing to speak up about the sentences he was handing down.�

# ¿ Sep 14, 2010 07:47

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

Sir John Falstaff posted:

I think my "favorite" part is:

"Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession."

Like they don't for, say, anyone looking to get or retain any job.

I wonder how long it will take before the bankers become bold enough to start wearing crowns.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2010 01:34

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

HidingFromGoro posted:

CA: Budget held hostage by prison costs.

This is the only thing that gives me hope about this disgusting situation. At some point it will become fiscally impossible to keep ignoring the issue and legislators might figure out that a social safety net costs less than incarcerating everyone.

Of course bullets cost less than a social safety net, so it could go the other way (and we all know it has before).

# ¿ Nov 15, 2010 17:01

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

Main Paineframe posted:

Prison doesn't exist to abuse the evil, that'd just be plain sociopathic. Prison is intended to resolve the problems that render people unable to abide by the rules of society, and to keep them segregated from mainstream society until that process is complete. There's no such thing as a "literally random crime" - everyone does things for a reason, even if that reason doesn't make sense to you or to the reporters. Oftentimes, such "senseless" crimes are the result of mental illness or a more brutal worldview brought about by previous prison time.

This is incorrect. Prison doesn't have any specifically defined goals, which is one it's major issues. People just project whatever they think it should be doing in order to justify it's existence. For the majority of people this means that prison is a place of retributive punishment, and therefor the more horrible it is the more effective.

This is why prison reform is such a difficult issue, there is no common framework for people to work with. If it was found that halving sentences and giving inmates WoW in prison reduced recidivism by 75% that would be considered a failure by many because reducing recidivism is only a secondary purpose, suffering is primary.

Rutibex fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Nov 16, 2010

# ¿ Nov 16, 2010 16:47

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

s0meb0dy0 posted:

It's irrelevant. You can't tell who deserves such awful punishment, so no one should get it.

It's pretty easy to tell who's in the 1%, they wear patches on their cloths to that effect :v:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw_motorcycle_club#One_percenter

# ¿ Nov 17, 2010 02:15

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

Panzeh posted:

Of all the marginalized groups in the country, prisoners are the most isolated from the suburban white guy.

If there is going to be any kind of revolution it will start with large scale prison revolts. At this point there are literally as many people behind bars as there are in the entire US military.

No one can tell me this isn't a recipe for some kind of violence:

Click here for the full 1807x1200 image.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2010 17:13

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

Nodrog posted:

Im aware trafficking exists, however that story is probably either exaggerated or altered, and the idea that suburban white kids are likely to be snatched off the street and sold as prostitutes sounds like moral panic.

My bet is the pimp was providing her with crack or meth and she went willingly.

A lot of human trafficking starts voluntarily, for a variety of reasons like searching for a job in a foreign country. It's only once they get there that they realize they are a slave and can't leave. Kind of like Dubai.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2010 15:21

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

anonumos posted:

I wouldn't say that. Consider how many privileged white girls go missing every day, never to be heard from again. Consider also cases like Elizabeth Smart, held for 9 months by a fringe Mormon as his "wife".

Not all missing white girls are involuntary abductions; there are still a lot of rebels who get themselves in bad situations. But I'm also convinced there's a thriving trade in "white cargo".

And it's not exclusive to white girls. Or even girls in particular.

If you are looking for white girls why go to the hassle of kidnapping an American? She could run away and just go to the police. If you trick and import a Russian girl she will have much less of an ability to escape. If she goes to the police she'll just be deported.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2010 15:44

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

VoidAltoid posted:

Yeah, charging them for medical care when they make next to nothing, I'm sure no preventable medical problems will come from this

This isn't a matter of stupidity. They know exactly what will result from this new policy, and they don't give a poo poo.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2010 00:12

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

joat mon posted:

Do you have some sources for this? I'd like to do some further reading on it.

The prison industry in the United States: big business or a new form of slavery?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8289

A Brief History of the Prison Industry
http://www.insideprison.com/prison-industry-labor.asp

Rooted in Slavery: Prison Labor Exploitation
http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/856

What would happen is the former slaves would be given a "share-cropping" deal whereby they remained basically in slavery but got to keep a portion of what they farmed. Of course like the record industry of today the land owners knew how to adjust the books so that the former slaves could never really pay their "expenses". This was a crime, and the former slaves who couldn't pay their debts would be carted off to prisons to be leased out by the government. Gotcha!

The civil war wasn't about ending slavery, it was about nationalizing and industrializing it.

Rutibex fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Nov 21, 2010

# ¿ Nov 21, 2010 17:49

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

Good form medieval Thinker, a spectacular troll if I've ever seen one

Medieval Thinker posted:

You need money to run prisons, which would in part be funded by forcing minor criminals to pay for their crimes (in cash). Would it be better for their rehabilitation to simply send them to a mandatory program to sort out their problems? That might be good, but it wouldn't fix even the majority of them. I continue to be unconvinced by arguments that somehow all those who steal are doing so out of necessity. Some may, but the majority simply want more then they can earn through legal means, and they want it now. They want a rise in their income enough that they are willing to risk legal sanctions for it. It is this sort of criminal which a garnished wage would discourage from crime the most. As for drug users, as I said before, every person caught with illegal drugs, be it weed, cocaine or whatever, just give them a ticket ($100? $500), as you would a parking ticket and tell them that jail is only a threat if they fail to pay within the alloted time. The drug laws in this way would not be expected to stamp out all illegal drug use, but turn those using drugs into a source of income for drug treatment programs and dealing with more serious criminals. Those who steal solely to feed their starving families or some such get a deserved slap on the wrists, and those who are stealing just to move up faster in the world then following the law would allow are punished with the opposite of what they wanted (less money rather then more money).

I am addressing this for the benefit of people reading this thread because it actually happens to an extent:

http://www.crimecasefiles.com/blog/2010/11/inmates-pay-up-for-their-time-in-prison/

This system (especially the bolded part) is entirely inconsistent with any of the goals you have presented. A felony on your record essentially makes you unemployable except at the worst paying jobs. In addition to this you are garnishing their wages. A person can not survive and support a family on garnished minimum wage. By cutting them off from any legitimate source of income and adding additional burdens you are incentivizing them to commit additional crimes and/or disappear from the system to avoid their "debt".

The bolded part is the most inconsistent. You admit that this system would in effect be a tax on illegal drugs and not in any way effect their use. Why not legalize all drugs and tax them instead? You have already admitted defeat in the "drug war". All your policy accomplishes is further disenfranchisement of the poor.

Third and most important by putting debts on these people you are not only punishing them, you are punishing their children. children that are entirely innocent are forced to pay for the sins of their parents with a lower quality of upbringing. As has been proven quite consistently before, an upbringing in poverty is a great way to produce future criminals.

Fourth, are you going to give these people jobs so they can pay their "debt"? There is currently 10% unemployment in the USA at the moment (and this is the official number, I expect it is actually much larger), and this number doesn't count the people that are in prison today that would be released into the economy to pay off their "debts". When they can't find a job through no fault of their own they are further punished under this system. How does that breed anything but bitterness and disrespect for a system that is loving them? They may feel guilt for their original crime but punishing them for not being able to find a job in this economy has no purpose but to again produce additional criminals.

Rutibex fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Nov 22, 2010

# ¿ Nov 22, 2010 19:06

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

Medieval Thinker posted:

I think the point that is being lost here is that the situation I am describing is an alternative to being in PRISON. This goes straight to 21stCentury's point, no I would certainly not enjoy living for five years with such minimal flexibility or money to spend on something other then the absolute bare essentials. Would I enjoy it compared to being in prison for five years? Absolutely.

This policy suggestion is not meant as an insult to the working poor, it is meant as a more productive, lesser of two evils alternative to sending small time criminal offenders to prison.

If you don't think that this is a good trade-off, or there is a truly viable third option which would solve this problem, please say so. This is a thread about how bad prison is (no duh), so this is merely a way to avoid sending them there. Again, not trying to be fascistic or condescending to the working class, just proposing a policy option.

EDIT:
Not to say Goons are a sample of the society at large, but I guess at least with this demographic this policy is not very popular. Oh well. Carry on then.

Don't feel discouraged, I can tell you are genuinely trying to suggest solutions to this problem. Your idea is in fact better than the current system. The issue is that such a system would only work within a context of a properly functioning and just system of law and social equality.

That isn't really what we have now.

Rutibex fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Nov 23, 2010

# ¿ Nov 23, 2010 07:33

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

baquerd posted:

I didn't know they could force women not to get pregnant under the threat of jail (turned out to be a death sentence in this case).

http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/woman_jailed_for_getting_pregnant_dies_from_medical_neglect

I have to admit that I'm a bit monstrous for laughing at the concept of putting a prostitute into a "work" release program and being surprised that she became pregnant.

Yeah this is a pretty clear violation of her human rights, but that's par for the course these days. I literally wouldn't be surprised if a story came up that prisons with budget shortfalls where selling inmate organs or something.

# ¿ Nov 26, 2010 21:44

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

21stCentury posted:

This is what exemplifies that biggest flaw with a democratic system.

At some point, the only way to get to power is by doing what makes voters feel good and not what needs to be done. If a president wants to be elected, he can't promise to do the right thing if it's hard or if it means people will have to make sacrifices.

It's not like Obama has followed through on pretty much any campaign promises. They could just lie like they always do and tell people they will be "tough on crime" then do an about face and institute reforms and end the drug war.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2010 06:32

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

JMBosch posted:

Apparently thousands of prisoners are striking right now, and have been for a couple days, in at least six prisons across Georgia. They are staying in their cells, refusing to leave or do work until their demands are met. The strike was organized largely through banned cellphones they smuggled and crosses typical divisions between race or gang affiliation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/us/12prison.html?_r=1
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/12/11-0

They've even had their demands distilled and released in a press release.
http://www.georgiagreenparty.org/blogs/bdixon/GA_InmatesStageHistoricOneDayPrisonStrikeToday

Prison authorities have thus far declined to comment to the media, and have responded to the strike by placing them under continuous lock-down (as though they were rioting), cutting off their heat and hot water, and selectively beating who they think the ringleaders are.

Besides the NYT article above, I can't find any mention of it in corporate media. There's much more media interest in prisons' decisions to use shorter socks and re-use underwear between inmates to save money.

This is great news! I can't help but want this to turn bloody. I know bloodshed is a tragety, but there is no way they will get any demands met without it. If they riot or engeneer a mass escape there might be some real talk about prison reform.

They're wrong about the 13th amendment though, it specifically allows for prison slavery.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2010 03:49

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

HidingFromGoro posted:

Mass escape is impossible in a modern prison, especially in a situation like this. You're right on the 13th. I believe you're wrong on the bloodshed part.

What makes mass escape impossible? I imagine that response time for a prison riot is likely pretty good, but we're talking about thousands of healthy young males. I can't see it being stopped if they where united and determined.

As far as bloodshed, I abhor it as a problem solving method but I do agree that in certain absolutely morally repugnant situations (like the US prison industry) it is called for. All I'm saying is the riot police and guards hurt in this scenario aren't the corrupt assholes who created this situation, they are victims of the exact same system.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2010 05:00

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

evilweasel posted:

You have to be brain-damaged to think that a prison riot that causes bloodshed would lead to improvements.

Not a riot no, that (like this protest) will be largely ignored by mass media and nothing will come of it. A bloody escape, and maybe taking some important local officials hostage would get the issue in the national narrative.

People would be talking about it, which is more than I can say for now. These people are literally slaves, do they not have the right to harm their captors to attain freedom?

# ¿ Dec 13, 2010 05:51

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

evilweasel posted:

Yes, in the "lock down these barbaric monsters and strip them of the few rights they have or you may wake up with one of them in your house" sense of getting it into the national narrative.

Many are already protesting the conditions they are in now, if they got worse it would only serve to unite prisoners further in the cause. Eventually something will snap.

Trying to fix the current system is polishing a turd, it needs to be run into the ground and smashed before something better can be put in it's place.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2010 06:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 01:19

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

evilweasel posted:

Fantasies of violent revolution are stupid. Things can get worse and making them worse squelches your dumb rebellion.

Do you think this non-violent protest will accomplish anything? Besides extra beatings and solitary confinement?

It may very well, there have been lots of success stories of non-violent disobedience. There has been a larger amount of successful violent revolutions. It's not a stupid fantasy, it's worked before. The USA is proof positive.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2010 06:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Prison Thread

«‹›2 »