So, IMO, resources would be much better spent improving what we have (a lot), making sure justice & sentencing is fair and consistent, and certainly doing a much better job of post-incarceration support, community, and monitoring. I would wager that many, many more people can be helped out of their circumstances than are currently, but prisoners are almost dropped entirely once they're released.
I recently realised this while watching Gordon Ramsay’s Bad Boy Bakery. The sentiment (I assume often portrayed intentionally by the show) about prisoners really both shocked and confused me. It’s as if people want prisoners to do absolutely nothing, somehow still act according to their rules and then somehow flourish in society after release.
imo, prison systems should be more focused on learning crafts and education in general. I feel like the vast majority are in for minor crimes and somehow their life should be ruined for it. Doesn’t seem just.
There’s definitely some people who pose a permanent danger to society, and some prison sentences will seem just. But there’s no reason they should be bored out of their minds
I very much agree re: focus on education. I spent some time in a new facility and they had good classrooms and programs for it and I saw a lot of interest in them. That said, I think boredom is often seen by many as a desirable part of the punishment.
It sounds great on paper but the second real people get involved, it becomes a humans rights disaster.
Even in the age of drawing and quartering, penal colonies were used primarily as an alternative to capital punishment. In the age of gruesome physical torture, exile was used primarily an alternative to execution.
I've been convicted of an assault charge before, do I qualify?
There are tons of serious pragmatic issues with your suggestions, as well as serious political questions about how to convince people to implement them.
For extra credit: assume the offender has no money.
Non-violent offenders will be housed in a different prison than violent offenders, and the worst of the worst (usually lifers) will be put into one or two very secure prisons.
This castle is the max security prison in Czechia. Used as a prison since 1760 (back then for offending clergy). You won't get there for child support debt.
https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C4%9Bznice_M%C3%ADrov
(Though as a former kid whose father was deliberately neglecting child support payments - it can work pretty long if he lives in another country that has a corrupt judicial system - I believe withholding child support should be punished by more than just a slap on the wrist. Lack of support makes life really hard for the kids.)
Some countries essentially do this (e.g. caning in Singapore).
[1] https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/what-is-a-beyo...
If you pay them the market rate and this activity improves their well-being compared to being sedentary, I think it’s a win for all involved.
I've seen outrage over the idea that prisoners have access to TVs, or gaming consoles, or similar, stories of wardens confiscating books and pen and paper and such. I understand there are some other concerns that may warrant keeping usage of some of those under surveillance or similar (keep a pencil from being used as a shiv say), but other countries don't try and make prisons as miserable an experience as possible, and they have far, far lower rates of recidivism and violence and such.
Deb Alderson's Global Tel*Link is replacing libraries with locked down tablets that have e-reader apps. Inmates are charged a couple bucks an hour for access to the tablet and are limited to 90 minutes of reading time.
E.g.,
https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/11/allegheny-county-jail-li...
https://moguldom.com/241982/exploiting-prisoners-w-virginia-...
I won't argue that there aren't some people who have such a vindictive need, but in most cases where I've had conversations with folks about things like this, it's more that they oppose someone having a similar (or maybe "better") quality of life to what they have, without working to pay for it, and rather being paid for by them. The opposition to these things in prisons seem similar to the arguments I hear from people against social safety net things generally. Not to say these arguments are reasonable, but I don't think vindictiveness is the primary driving factor.
That's even worse. But maybe the term should be different; maybe it isn't vindictiveness.
The US is the most incarcerated country in the world. We have the most prisoners, the most prisoners per capita, the highest spending on prisoners, and one of the worst recidivism rates (76% after 5 years).
What we're doing is -clearly- not working. The idea that we'd rather spend -more- than other countries, on a system that works worse, begs the question of 'why'. Why would we want to keep doing the same thing, that isn't working, -and- costs us more? Because we think prisoners don't deserve better.
Maybe that isn't "vindictiveness", but it's damned close.
It certainly isn't "I want to make sure my tax dollars being used effectively", or "I want the best outcomes from prisons", or even "I want to make sure they're only getting what they need to serve their time and then be able to come out and rejoin society".
It very much is "Damn the consequences, and how much it costs, I want them to have the worst possible experience".
And it acts as an anti-deterrent if someone sees that they would improve their material conditions by doing harmful things and going to prison. There's nothing wrong with ensuring good prison conditions, but it has to go hand in hand with ensuring equally good non-prison conditions for poor people.
To be clear, I am not agreeing with the position I am describing. Rather, I am trying to very specifically say that it is NOT "very much... I want them to have the worst possible experience."
If anything, I think the attitude I described may be more reflective of the overall poor quality of life (relative to the possibilities) that the majority of Americans enjoy in their day-to-day lives due to the widening wealthy inequality. For many people, who can't even afford access to entertainment like "gaming consoles", providing such to prisoners out of the taxpayer's till makes them question why their life is so hard and what they're working for if they could just become anti-social and get enjoyment beyond "three hots and a cot". Granted, perhaps it would be useful if more people questioned their lot in life and how we got here, but the result of that questioning for many is not high-minded ideals and calls for more equality.
You seem to be reiterating the idea of vindictiveness in your conclusion, while acknowledging that something akin to spite might be more causative earlier on in your response. I am not sure I'd classify exactly what I'm describing as either spite or vindictiveness, but it's certainly a dark feeling. What I'm observing is that many people are uncomfortable with the idea of prisoners having an enjoyable enough quality of life such that their own non-prison life seems worse by comparison, it creates feelings of futility towards life and engenders a certain type of nihilism. I think considering that people are merely vindictive or spiteful is an oversimplification that does not fully encompass the complexity of the human experience. You should also consider that many people who are in the bottom half of American society /know/ someone who's been in prison, or may have been in prison themselves, so it is not as if the realities of the prison experience have escaped these people. As you rightly point out, the US has the highest incarceration and recidivism rates in the world, and it's predominantly people who are "lower class" ending up there, mostly from a demographic standpoint the same folks who hold the viewpoint I'm trying to point out.
It makes me laugh at myself because I wasn't going to do any of it either way.
This is very akin to vindictiveness, though. It's one of the most corrosive forces in American political life. *Someone* might get something they don't *deserve*. Bonus points if that someone is the "other" (Jewish, brown skin, Mexican, whatever). The right wing used this as a wedge issue in the 80's ("welfare queens") to make life miserable for the poor and it's the driving force behind a lot of anti-immigration rhetoric here and abroad.
I think prisoners should have the option to work and that they should be subject to all of the normal worker protection laws. Wages can go toward some combination of restitution and improving quality of life in prisons: food, lodging, entertainment in off hours, etc.
Restitution should be limited to a fixed percentage of monthly income (as it is in the civilian world). Why? Because removing positive reinforcement from the act of labor has perverse psychological effects. These effects persist after incarceration and contribute to recidivism.
This sort of system is insufficiently punitive for some, so the politics of these reforms are tricky.
(Should mention they just got a new director and she is really awesome. Came from the women’s bean project. Hope she can make some positive change but she’ll have to fight a lot of bureaucracy.)
It would be better to give them daily education, therapy, recreation, etc. They have piloted such programs in the US with a lot of success at preventing recidivism.
All of this can save costs in the long run. Paying for prison security, medical costs, maintenance, turnover, and recidivism is extremely expensive.
Put them in education, give them food and shelter, and they'll be better able to contribute to society when they get out.
When they got out, they didn’t even know how to drive because it started from teenage years (abusive father).
I was shocked that the state didn’t spend an ounce of energy to at least teach these people basic skills.
Now they are forced to live in cities where they are more likely to interact with bad influences.
Anyway, I wonder if driving could be part of reform. E.g. let them be a part of the driving economy to build skills and support the nation.
So I'd ask: What prevents us from using house arrest as an alternative to imprisonment more often? How can those problems be addressed? Can we "build a better house arrest" -- maybe even from within the private sector?
Lets take for an example a semi successful drug dealer. Odds are the drug dealer choose that profession because the rewards were higher than the risks. So to discourage that you can 1) make prison so terrible he fears it more than the rewards from dealing 2) teach him something that is of comparable economic utility so he no longer wants to deal drugs.
The problem is that option 2 is arguably a reward. If you create incentives to break rules ("I break the law and sell drugs, my punishment is that i get locked away from X years and be forced to learn a trade or get a degree") then why wouldnt you break rules? We seem to pretend we dont want 1. But I've seen plenty of comments from conservatives about how the criminals deserve what they get, and oddly enough I also hear "dont drop the soap" jokes from liberals when its people they dont like....
Then you have for example murderers. Quite a few murderers will probably never murder again. The man who kills his wife and her lover after catching them in bed, is probably not going to be killing anyone again. It was that set of situations that drove them to that. What more can the person do than classes on impulse control? And your going to get them to learn that by putting them in the place where the impulse stimulus is completely different than the regular world? What does life or a lengthy prison accomplish if punishment/deterrence is not the goal?
Thats not even getting into the fact that prison is the main mental health provider for anyone with serious issues who cant get family to take care of them. (and even people who have family might not be able to afford their particular issues). A person with severe schizophrenia who attacks others can't really be reformed
The only real fix is to be honest about what the goal of "prison" is. And break the concept out into reform, containment, and punishment. At least then you can optimize towards those goals.
I'll give you an example to pair with your drug dealer example. A small community store is run by an old couple. Everyone who enters is greeted with pleasure. Shoplifting increases, and the old couple sells to a young person, who is concerned about shoplifting and doesn't greet everyone with pleasure. Then there's an armed robbery. Now there's cameras, bulletproof glass, and the store clerks are openly suspicious of people who come into the store. Now society is worse to live in, and the only people who caused that are the ones who did the crimes.
Crime causes poverty of spirit and weakens social bonds; prison is a place to keep prisoners so they don't disintegrate society.
So it sounds like they should be put in a facility optimized towards containment and letting them live out their days in some semblance of peace. (Not wanting them in peace sounds alot like you want them punished) Not in a facility where they take a slot to learn a trade from someone else and get to influence people who reform is deemed appropriate.
I thought your point was that the concept of prison as "a place where you are removed from society" is fundamentally flawed, and your rationale was that removal does not serve the person removed. It seems that your point is actually that the modern concept of prison as "a place where you go to be punished" is flawed, which I agree with. Prisoners should simply be outside society, not in pain or fear. If they can manage to live peacefully that ought to be allowed; if they cannot, they ought to be restricted further.
I think there are only two real "punishments", which are death and exile. Corporal punishment is just partially-applied death, and prison is just partially-applied exile. All other punishments I'm aware of are just shades of either death or exile; even monetary fines are "a reduction of your ability to participate in society".
Some people could really use removal from their environment and a fresh start where they get discipline and learn a way to be successful.(prison doesnt do this, and a one size fits all discipline approach causes problems too) Other people are just dangers to themselves and others. Mixing the two just damns the people who could be saved.