9 ms·

From everything I've ever read, there is no concept of rehabilitation in the USA. If you have ever been convicted, or even accused, of a felony or sexual crime

by buro9 10y ago

From everything I've ever read, there is no concept of rehabilitation in the USA. If you have ever been convicted, or even accused, of a felony or sexual crime in the USA then life as you knew it was over. The concept of being able to pay a debt to society and for that to settle the books, and to then allow those people to return to society and contribute value again... is alien to America. The problem starts with the lack of rehabilitation and not with the original incident. If a person is deprived of the hope of ever living a meaningful life again, then what incentive exists against their prior behaviour? There is no disincentive that works when a life has already been destroyed. Regardless of what it was, drugs, sex, violence, theft, or simply going to a demonstration and being arrested when someone else kicks off and you are convicted by proximity... once you deprive people of a future, of hope, then you really start bringing out the worst in them when you could have brought out the best in them.

forvelin 10y ago
Is this related to fact that there are people who profit over correction services in United States ? After digging around VICE article[0], lack of rehab in US made bit sense at least. [0] - https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/whos-getting-rich-off-the-prison-industrial-complex https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/whos-getting-rich-off-the...
- buro9 10y ago
  It is bigger and deeper than just that. I've even seen comments on here regarding immigration that simply said if someone has ever been arrested then they shouldn't be allowed into the USA. (No qualifying statements on recency or severity, or even acquittal.) With regards to crime (including the mere accusation of sexual things) the sentiment of the USA runs counter to the aspiration and promise of social mobility of the USA. Yes others profit from maintaining the status quo, but worse is that people are judged for life, based on a single incident in their past. And as the article points out, the zero tolerance amplifies the destructive nature of a society that judges.
  - tehlike 10y ago
    For immigration, it could make sense, at least in a utilitarian sense. You are trying to eliminate false-negatives, and checking criminal background (in other countries) is one way to do that. Now, many countries (esp. developing ones) people get imprisoned for expressing their thoughts (which is a shame), but whether USA would/should care about this or not is a different question. USA has a quota on how many immigrants it will allow, and it wants the best people. There are many people that can satisfy that requirement.
    - buro9 10y ago
      In the case cited in the article, of a child who as a pre-teenager ended up on a sexual register, does it make sense? Would it make sense if a homeless child had been caught shoplifting for food in their teenage years and 30 years later had turned their life around and become a professional... does it still make sense? And of refugees, does it make sense to offer foreign governments a mechanism to prevent emigration simply by arresting those who are likely to leave? The lack of rehabilitation as a fundamental concept that underpins the treatment of people, is a life sentence to those people.
      - tehlike 10y ago
        I totally agree with you, but my point is, why would US?
        buro9 10y ago
        To deprive a foreign power of influence in the decision making process. To enshrine in the process one of the myths of the American Dream in the form of potential for social mobility. To judge based on the virtues of the individual, rather than to judge based on the legal domain from which the individual originates (you should know that different countries have different standards, is the USA an enforcer of every standard?). Those are a few that spring to mind.
        10y ago
- paulajohnson 10y ago
  I think thats got a lot to do with it. Google "prison lobby" for a range of articles on the problem. The same companies also pay for public campaigns that talk up the danger from crime, as that makes people vote for punitive restrictions that keep the money rolling in. Those politicians who say "If I act on this I'll lose the next election" do so exactly because they know what the private prison industry can do to them.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Probably not. Stuff like getting rid of parole preceded private prisons. Private prisons is a trailing phenomenon that appears to be more about serving the huge demand for prison beds created by retributive policies. Washington State, for example still has no private prisons. But it enacted one of the country's early "three strikes laws" back in the early 1990s. Private prison companies have been clamoring to get an opportunity to enter the state, but they had nothing to do with the tough laws that caused the existing public prisons to be at 140% capacity.
  - ending 10y ago
    It's also worth considering that private prisons, once established, create perverse incentives to intensify those same retributive policies. A vicious recursion.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      It's a thought but I suspect it's incorrect. The harshness of prison policies peaked in the 1980s to 1990s. Private prisons really started booming in the late 1990s and the 2000s. But the trend since then in policy has been a softening (somewhat) of retributive policies. California's involvement with private prisons for example is largely in this decade, in response to court orders requiring reduction in overcrowding. But it past the country's harshest three strikes laws (where people were getting life sentences for a third non-violent felony) in the 1990s. But it softened that a bit a couple of years ago. I think the most you can say is that private prisons (and public prison guard unions, which is probably a much bigger force) are slowing the retreat from 1980s/1990s retributive policies.
cyberferret 10y ago
That is the exact feeling I get when I read about any sort of public register. They seem to be predicated on the fact that the people on the register will never, ever change during the course of their lives. Granted, some won't rehabilitate, and will be habitual reoffenders, but as the article shows, many are once off offenders or just made bad choices as a kid or young adult, and don't really deserve to be marked for life. I just wish there was more evidence of the judicial system at least trying to differentiate the two groups rather than place everyone in the same 'too hard' basket.
parenthephobia 10y ago
> The concept of being able to pay a debt to society and for that to settle the books, and to then allow those people to return to society and contribute value again... is alien to America. Subjectively, thinking about films and TV involving prisoners, all the American ones I can think of (I'm certain there are exceptions, naturally) involve protagonists who are either out-right shown to be innocent or are very heavily implied to be. OTOH, there are many British ones where the protagonist is definitely guilty, but nonetheless portrayed in a sympathetic or even positive light.
jgalt212 10y ago
fair enough, my anti-American exceptionalism friend. Please point me to an example of a society, of non-trivial size and mixed racial groups, that's doing a good job with rehabilitation and recidivism.
- buro9 10y ago
  Europe in it's entirety. Though Scandinavia is an outlier even then: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/11/sweden-closes-prisons-number-inmates-plummets https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/11/sweden-closes-... I guess that in your binary pro/anti view of me this makes me pro-Scandinavian. I can think of worse things to be.
  - jgalt212 10y ago
    Europe is not doing a good job on recidivism. Please provide counter-evidence. And Sweden is rather mono-chromatic.
    - ionised 10y ago
      > Europe is not doing a good job on recidivism. Where is your counter evidence to what the person you replied to just posted?
soulnothing 10y ago
One anecdotal story I have. I was riding home on the bus in Wilmington. A guy interrupts me asking for some cash. I get to talking asking what it's for and such. Found out he had just gotten out of jail for a possession charge. The guy was living with his Sister and looking for a job. But due to the charge no one would hire him. I remember him being shook up over being denied a janitor job at Bob Evans. I took him for a drink, and asked him what he was going to do next. He said he had to sell one way or the other. No place would hire him, he was volunteering on the side. He needed money, and selling provided that. Although he didn't want too anymore. His end goal was to get incarcerated again. As he said three square meals and a roof. I also had a misdemeanor for a DUI. I was turned down from a number of jobs simply due to this. I had done my time, paid everything, and volunteered after wards. Despite this because I had a DUI I was a liable employee. There seems to be a demonization almost of a lot of things. We're often afraid to give hand outs, or offer a helping hand. Survival of the fittest to an almost extreme. Rehabilitation would be great. But I know many people who don't even believe in giving second chances. One and done sort of thing. Do we not provide rehabilitation because we don't want to, funds, whatever. Or because we don't think they can be rehabilitated?
- Chris2048 10y ago
  What is a misdemeanor DUI? I'll be honest with you, I think some people underestimate how terrible it is; You could have a history of beating up your spouse and be less likely to kill someone..
  - soulnothing 10y ago
    I completely agree, a DUI is serious business. I went dry for 2.5 years after that incident. I was 0.09 just above the legal limit. The accident was caused by me having a seizure behind the wheel (epileptic). So they labeled it as a misdemeanor and put me on the fast track rehab program. Community service, fine, and expungement. After that I won't let friends drive while intoxicated. I'll grab an uber, or find some other way. Make them stay with me etc.

by buro9 10y ago

forvelin 10y ago

Is this related to fact that there are people who profit over correction services in United States ? After digging around VICE article[0], lack of rehab in US made bit sense at least. [0] - https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/whos-getting-rich-off-the-prison-industrial-complex https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/whos-getting-rich-off-the...

buro9 10y ago
It is bigger and deeper than just that. I've even seen comments on here regarding immigration that simply said if someone has ever been arrested then they shouldn't be allowed into the USA. (No qualifying statements on recency or severity, or even acquittal.) With regards to crime (including the mere accusation of sexual things) the sentiment of the USA runs counter to the aspiration and promise of social mobility of the USA. Yes others profit from maintaining the status quo, but worse is that people are judged for life, based on a single incident in their past. And as the article points out, the zero tolerance amplifies the destructive nature of a society that judges.
- tehlike 10y ago
  For immigration, it could make sense, at least in a utilitarian sense. You are trying to eliminate false-negatives, and checking criminal background (in other countries) is one way to do that. Now, many countries (esp. developing ones) people get imprisoned for expressing their thoughts (which is a shame), but whether USA would/should care about this or not is a different question. USA has a quota on how many immigrants it will allow, and it wants the best people. There are many people that can satisfy that requirement.
  - buro9 10y ago
    In the case cited in the article, of a child who as a pre-teenager ended up on a sexual register, does it make sense? Would it make sense if a homeless child had been caught shoplifting for food in their teenage years and 30 years later had turned their life around and become a professional... does it still make sense? And of refugees, does it make sense to offer foreign governments a mechanism to prevent emigration simply by arresting those who are likely to leave? The lack of rehabilitation as a fundamental concept that underpins the treatment of people, is a life sentence to those people.
    - tehlike 10y ago
      I totally agree with you, but my point is, why would US?
      - buro9 10y ago
        To deprive a foreign power of influence in the decision making process. To enshrine in the process one of the myths of the American Dream in the form of potential for social mobility. To judge based on the virtues of the individual, rather than to judge based on the legal domain from which the individual originates (you should know that different countries have different standards, is the USA an enforcer of every standard?). Those are a few that spring to mind.
        10y ago
paulajohnson 10y ago
I think thats got a lot to do with it. Google "prison lobby" for a range of articles on the problem. The same companies also pay for public campaigns that talk up the danger from crime, as that makes people vote for punitive restrictions that keep the money rolling in. Those politicians who say "If I act on this I'll lose the next election" do so exactly because they know what the private prison industry can do to them.
rayiner 10y ago
Probably not. Stuff like getting rid of parole preceded private prisons. Private prisons is a trailing phenomenon that appears to be more about serving the huge demand for prison beds created by retributive policies. Washington State, for example still has no private prisons. But it enacted one of the country's early "three strikes laws" back in the early 1990s. Private prison companies have been clamoring to get an opportunity to enter the state, but they had nothing to do with the tough laws that caused the existing public prisons to be at 140% capacity.
- ending 10y ago
  It's also worth considering that private prisons, once established, create perverse incentives to intensify those same retributive policies. A vicious recursion.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    It's a thought but I suspect it's incorrect. The harshness of prison policies peaked in the 1980s to 1990s. Private prisons really started booming in the late 1990s and the 2000s. But the trend since then in policy has been a softening (somewhat) of retributive policies. California's involvement with private prisons for example is largely in this decade, in response to court orders requiring reduction in overcrowding. But it past the country's harshest three strikes laws (where people were getting life sentences for a third non-violent felony) in the 1990s. But it softened that a bit a couple of years ago. I think the most you can say is that private prisons (and public prison guard unions, which is probably a much bigger force) are slowing the retreat from 1980s/1990s retributive policies.

cyberferret 10y ago

That is the exact feeling I get when I read about any sort of public register. They seem to be predicated on the fact that the people on the register will never, ever change during the course of their lives. Granted, some won't rehabilitate, and will be habitual reoffenders, but as the article shows, many are once off offenders or just made bad choices as a kid or young adult, and don't really deserve to be marked for life. I just wish there was more evidence of the judicial system at least trying to differentiate the two groups rather than place everyone in the same 'too hard' basket.

parenthephobia 10y ago

> The concept of being able to pay a debt to society and for that to settle the books, and to then allow those people to return to society and contribute value again... is alien to America. Subjectively, thinking about films and TV involving prisoners, all the American ones I can think of (I'm certain there are exceptions, naturally) involve protagonists who are either out-right shown to be innocent or are very heavily implied to be. OTOH, there are many British ones where the protagonist is definitely guilty, but nonetheless portrayed in a sympathetic or even positive light.

jgalt212 10y ago

fair enough, my anti-American exceptionalism friend. Please point me to an example of a society, of non-trivial size and mixed racial groups, that's doing a good job with rehabilitation and recidivism.

buro9 10y ago
Europe in it's entirety. Though Scandinavia is an outlier even then: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/11/sweden-closes-prisons-number-inmates-plummets https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/11/sweden-closes-... I guess that in your binary pro/anti view of me this makes me pro-Scandinavian. I can think of worse things to be.
- jgalt212 10y ago
  Europe is not doing a good job on recidivism. Please provide counter-evidence. And Sweden is rather mono-chromatic.
  - ionised 10y ago
    > Europe is not doing a good job on recidivism. Where is your counter evidence to what the person you replied to just posted?

soulnothing 10y ago

One anecdotal story I have. I was riding home on the bus in Wilmington. A guy interrupts me asking for some cash. I get to talking asking what it's for and such. Found out he had just gotten out of jail for a possession charge. The guy was living with his Sister and looking for a job. But due to the charge no one would hire him. I remember him being shook up over being denied a janitor job at Bob Evans. I took him for a drink, and asked him what he was going to do next. He said he had to sell one way or the other. No place would hire him, he was volunteering on the side. He needed money, and selling provided that. Although he didn't want too anymore. His end goal was to get incarcerated again. As he said three square meals and a roof. I also had a misdemeanor for a DUI. I was turned down from a number of jobs simply due to this. I had done my time, paid everything, and volunteered after wards. Despite this because I had a DUI I was a liable employee. There seems to be a demonization almost of a lot of things. We're often afraid to give hand outs, or offer a helping hand. Survival of the fittest to an almost extreme. Rehabilitation would be great. But I know many people who don't even believe in giving second chances. One and done sort of thing. Do we not provide rehabilitation because we don't want to, funds, whatever. Or because we don't think they can be rehabilitated?

Chris2048 10y ago
What is a misdemeanor DUI? I'll be honest with you, I think some people underestimate how terrible it is; You could have a history of beating up your spouse and be less likely to kill someone..
- soulnothing 10y ago
  I completely agree, a DUI is serious business. I went dry for 2.5 years after that incident. I was 0.09 just above the legal limit. The accident was caused by me having a seizure behind the wheel (epileptic). So they labeled it as a misdemeanor and put me on the fast track rehab program. Community service, fine, and expungement. After that I won't let friends drive while intoxicated. I'll grab an uber, or find some other way. Make them stay with me etc.