12 ms·

This is a feature, not a bug. The prison system is designed to drag you in and keep you in. Just disgusting.

akuji1993 9y ago
Yep, that's exactly what a private prison system leads to. You can see the system working as intended here. 5 years is... just ridiculous. There's no words for this kind of injustice.
- thatswrong0 9y ago
  Private prisons have basically nothing to do with this. They house very little of the prison population (less than 10% IIRC)
  - Guvante 9y ago
    Private prisons lead to lobbying for harsher convictions to improve the bottom line of those prisons, that is why they often come up.
    - evanpw 9y ago
      So do police and prison guards' unions, and they're much larger: https://reason.com/blog/2015/06/02/are-for-profit-prisons-or-public-unions https://reason.com/blog/2015/06/02/are-for-profit-prisons-or....
      - Retric 9y ago
        Prison guard unions and private prisons are effectively the same thing. They are both groups that directly benefit by increasing the prison population.
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    >>Private prisons have basically nothing to do with this. Incorrect. Private prisons have lobbyists that contaminate the system further upstream to ensure a steady supply of inmates. They do this by lobbying legislators for harsher prison sentences on trivial crimes.
    - syshum 9y ago
      While I am completely opposed to the quasi not really private prisons (they should not be called Private, a Private company has competition, these corporations are Government Contractors) The idea their lobbying efforts have had any effect on punishment guidelines is laughable. 1. The Public in General Votes for "Tough on Crime" politicians, the Public wants "criminal" to pay, they are just to ignorant to understand who "criminals" are as they picture the person is a ski mask robbing and raping them, not some person filling out a government form incorrectly 2. The Police Unions, Guard unions, and various other Non-Profit Groups lobby far far far more effectively than any of the For-profit Government Contractors for very very harsh punishments, and for the creation of new laws and regulations to make even more criminals every year.
- zeveb 9y ago
  I find five years a bit surprising, but what do you think the proper penalty would be for a felon committing voter fraud should be? Edit: I'm utterly amazed that this comment has been downvoted to silence. Disenfranchising felons — i.e., those who have committed extremely serious crimes — is while somewhat controversial a long-standing practice. The woman in question committed voter fraud by voting without being legally permitted to. This raises some questions. Are felons seriously not told they may not vote? Why not? Is five years a reasonable sentence (I don't really think so in this case, but for someone who commits large-scale voter fraud it might be)? Certainly the woman seems hard-done-by. At the end of the day, though, she did commit a crime under the laws of the state, and while the sentence seems harsh some sentence is necessary.
  - sampo 9y ago
    If you come from a country (like most European countries) where people are allowed to vote both on probation, and also in prison, then the whole act of voting wouldn't even be a fraud in your home country. But different countries have different practices on what is a crime.
    - creaghpatr 9y ago
      You would also be required to present photo ID in order to vote.
  - jartelt 9y ago
    I would prefer 0 days in prison because I don't think voting while a felon should be a crime. But, if we still want to call this situation voter fraud, how about we sentence them to community service? This person is not a danger to society, so I see no reason to put them in prison. More prion just messes up their life further and costs everybody a lot of precious tax dollars.
    - daveFNbuck 9y ago
      While I agree that what this woman did shouldn't be voter fraud, community service isn't sufficient deterrent for actual voter fraud. People put in lots of volunteer hours to help get their preferred candidate elected, so they'd probably be willing to risk community service too. Voter fraud is very dangerous to society, as society depends on our trust in institutions.
sexoffender 9y ago
The US criminal system isn't meant to rehabilitate, and a corrections officer told me that directly once (after I asked for a Bible and he said no). It's only meant to provide the public with a false sense of security. "Another scumbag has been locked up, key's been thrown away, you're all safe once again. Enjoy the rest of your evening." But it's okay because people are easily forgettable. If you have 100 people on a block, and 1 is taken away unjustly, you still have 99 who can quickly forget about that 1, provided they're distracted with enough beer, books, movies and memes.
- maxlybbert 9y ago
  I don’t think it was intentionally designed, but I believe the criminal justice system is best described as handing out draconian sentences to the unlucky few actually caught committing crimes. I’m convinced there are better approaches ( https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-26/plea-bargains-are-a-travesty-there-s-another-way https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-26/plea-barg... ).
danschumann 9y ago
I think the law she is guilty of far pre-dates the corruption of the system. I do agree that parts of are prison system have very corrupt parts, but this is a much older law. 5 years seems too long though.
- bambax 9y ago
  > 5 years seems too long though Are you being sarcastic? 5 years for voting while on probation is "too long"?? How about: 1. Not preventing people who are in prison from voting 2. Not even having a "probation" time after people have been released from prison; they did their time, they are free again
  - chrisseaton 9y ago
    > Not even having a "probation" time after people have been released from prison; they did their time, they are free again I think you're mistaken about what probation is. Probation is part of your time. You're sentenced for a given period of time, and at some point you may be released to serve the rest of that time in the community, on probation. Their sentence isn't over, and they aren't 'free' while they are on probation. It's part of the original sentence still. Probation allows people to serve part of their sentences back in the community when they are safe to do so. If you're arguing against having probation you're arguing for longer time spent in prison.
    - cornholio 9y ago
      > Probation is part of your time. Yes, but it's a part that is substantially different from imprisonment: you are given a chance to prove yourself (Latin probo, probatio, French prover) to society. It should be as close to the life of a virtuos citizen as possible - and exerting a right to vote, far from being a personal gain, is exactly the type of pro-social behavior we should encourage. I can understand why she should be reprimanded for violating her probation, but it's revolting that voting during probation could be considered a violation. Something is seriously wrong in a society that does that.
    - 9y ago
ryandrake 9y ago
I think Americans by and large see prison as this dungeon where we store people we don’t like for as long as possible rather than as a place where people who have made mistakes go to get the training and help they need in order to get back on track. That’s the simplest way to explain things like ultra long sentences compared to the rest of the civilized world, mistreating people after they’ve done their time (felon status for life and offender lists), and the extreme racial disparity among the prison population. It’s a system designed to permanently bifurcate the population into “normals” and “criminals”, often along racial lines, and to by any means keep the second group segregated for as long as possible, as often as possible.
- hnaccy 9y ago
  If I murdered someone out of curiosity and in doing so realized it was not fun at all should I be allowed to go free immediately since I will not murder again? In other words the rehabilitation occurred during and as a result of the criminal act.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    There's also 'fairness' in law - so you have to serve a sentence similar to others guilty of the same offense. And yes in this strawman case your sentence should perhaps not be a long one. Except the sociopath angle - a person who commits crime for fun is quite likely to find another fun crime to commit.
    - bobthechef 9y ago
      Retribution is inherent to punishment and by extension justice. It simply makes no sense to claim otherwise. Mercy makes no sense unless we accept that. A judge cannot show leniency or mercy unless it is, first, acknowledged that the criminal deserves something commensurate with the crime, and second, there is a real, deserved possibility (at least in principle, even if never realized) of receiving one's just deserts. Premeditated murder deserves the death penalty as a matter of principle, though we can decide legally never to manifest that as punishment. Punishment has three purposes: retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence. We seem to be suffering from a contemporary bias against retribution [0]. However, these three purposes are intimately connected. When a punishment fits the crime, we communicate the severity of the crime to the criminal. In that way, we help facilitate rehabilitation by making it clear how grave his offense has been. Deterrence is facilitated by the same token. Obviously, these are not absolute measures. For example, a criminal may be unrepentant, but then rehabilitation is not possible. In any case, adequate remorse does not remove the possibility of retribution (though a sincerely remorseful criminal would accept that he deserves commensurate punishment), but it does allow for mercy. [0] A common confusion here is that retribution entails hatred of the punished. It does not.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

akuji1993 9y ago

Yep, that's exactly what a private prison system leads to. You can see the system working as intended here. 5 years is... just ridiculous. There's no words for this kind of injustice.

thatswrong0 9y ago
Private prisons have basically nothing to do with this. They house very little of the prison population (less than 10% IIRC)
- Guvante 9y ago
  Private prisons lead to lobbying for harsher convictions to improve the bottom line of those prisons, that is why they often come up.
  - evanpw 9y ago
    So do police and prison guards' unions, and they're much larger: https://reason.com/blog/2015/06/02/are-for-profit-prisons-or-public-unions https://reason.com/blog/2015/06/02/are-for-profit-prisons-or....
    - Retric 9y ago
      Prison guard unions and private prisons are effectively the same thing. They are both groups that directly benefit by increasing the prison population.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  >>Private prisons have basically nothing to do with this. Incorrect. Private prisons have lobbyists that contaminate the system further upstream to ensure a steady supply of inmates. They do this by lobbying legislators for harsher prison sentences on trivial crimes.
  - syshum 9y ago
    While I am completely opposed to the quasi not really private prisons (they should not be called Private, a Private company has competition, these corporations are Government Contractors) The idea their lobbying efforts have had any effect on punishment guidelines is laughable. 1. The Public in General Votes for "Tough on Crime" politicians, the Public wants "criminal" to pay, they are just to ignorant to understand who "criminals" are as they picture the person is a ski mask robbing and raping them, not some person filling out a government form incorrectly 2. The Police Unions, Guard unions, and various other Non-Profit Groups lobby far far far more effectively than any of the For-profit Government Contractors for very very harsh punishments, and for the creation of new laws and regulations to make even more criminals every year.
zeveb 9y ago
I find five years a bit surprising, but what do you think the proper penalty would be for a felon committing voter fraud should be? Edit: I'm utterly amazed that this comment has been downvoted to silence. Disenfranchising felons — i.e., those who have committed extremely serious crimes — is while somewhat controversial a long-standing practice. The woman in question committed voter fraud by voting without being legally permitted to. This raises some questions. Are felons seriously not told they may not vote? Why not? Is five years a reasonable sentence (I don't really think so in this case, but for someone who commits large-scale voter fraud it might be)? Certainly the woman seems hard-done-by. At the end of the day, though, she did commit a crime under the laws of the state, and while the sentence seems harsh some sentence is necessary.
- sampo 9y ago
  If you come from a country (like most European countries) where people are allowed to vote both on probation, and also in prison, then the whole act of voting wouldn't even be a fraud in your home country. But different countries have different practices on what is a crime.
  - creaghpatr 9y ago
    You would also be required to present photo ID in order to vote.
- jartelt 9y ago
  I would prefer 0 days in prison because I don't think voting while a felon should be a crime. But, if we still want to call this situation voter fraud, how about we sentence them to community service? This person is not a danger to society, so I see no reason to put them in prison. More prion just messes up their life further and costs everybody a lot of precious tax dollars.
  - daveFNbuck 9y ago
    While I agree that what this woman did shouldn't be voter fraud, community service isn't sufficient deterrent for actual voter fraud. People put in lots of volunteer hours to help get their preferred candidate elected, so they'd probably be willing to risk community service too. Voter fraud is very dangerous to society, as society depends on our trust in institutions.

sexoffender 9y ago

The US criminal system isn't meant to rehabilitate, and a corrections officer told me that directly once (after I asked for a Bible and he said no). It's only meant to provide the public with a false sense of security. "Another scumbag has been locked up, key's been thrown away, you're all safe once again. Enjoy the rest of your evening." But it's okay because people are easily forgettable. If you have 100 people on a block, and 1 is taken away unjustly, you still have 99 who can quickly forget about that 1, provided they're distracted with enough beer, books, movies and memes.

maxlybbert 9y ago
I don’t think it was intentionally designed, but I believe the criminal justice system is best described as handing out draconian sentences to the unlucky few actually caught committing crimes. I’m convinced there are better approaches ( https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-26/plea-bargains-are-a-travesty-there-s-another-way https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-26/plea-barg... ).

danschumann 9y ago

I think the law she is guilty of far pre-dates the corruption of the system. I do agree that parts of are prison system have very corrupt parts, but this is a much older law. 5 years seems too long though.

bambax 9y ago
> 5 years seems too long though Are you being sarcastic? 5 years for voting while on probation is "too long"?? How about: 1. Not preventing people who are in prison from voting 2. Not even having a "probation" time after people have been released from prison; they did their time, they are free again
- chrisseaton 9y ago
  > Not even having a "probation" time after people have been released from prison; they did their time, they are free again I think you're mistaken about what probation is. Probation is part of your time. You're sentenced for a given period of time, and at some point you may be released to serve the rest of that time in the community, on probation. Their sentence isn't over, and they aren't 'free' while they are on probation. It's part of the original sentence still. Probation allows people to serve part of their sentences back in the community when they are safe to do so. If you're arguing against having probation you're arguing for longer time spent in prison.
  - cornholio 9y ago
    > Probation is part of your time. Yes, but it's a part that is substantially different from imprisonment: you are given a chance to prove yourself (Latin probo, probatio, French prover) to society. It should be as close to the life of a virtuos citizen as possible - and exerting a right to vote, far from being a personal gain, is exactly the type of pro-social behavior we should encourage. I can understand why she should be reprimanded for violating her probation, but it's revolting that voting during probation could be considered a violation. Something is seriously wrong in a society that does that.
  - 9y ago

ryandrake 9y ago

I think Americans by and large see prison as this dungeon where we store people we don’t like for as long as possible rather than as a place where people who have made mistakes go to get the training and help they need in order to get back on track. That’s the simplest way to explain things like ultra long sentences compared to the rest of the civilized world, mistreating people after they’ve done their time (felon status for life and offender lists), and the extreme racial disparity among the prison population. It’s a system designed to permanently bifurcate the population into “normals” and “criminals”, often along racial lines, and to by any means keep the second group segregated for as long as possible, as often as possible.

hnaccy 9y ago
If I murdered someone out of curiosity and in doing so realized it was not fun at all should I be allowed to go free immediately since I will not murder again? In other words the rehabilitation occurred during and as a result of the criminal act.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  There's also 'fairness' in law - so you have to serve a sentence similar to others guilty of the same offense. And yes in this strawman case your sentence should perhaps not be a long one. Except the sociopath angle - a person who commits crime for fun is quite likely to find another fun crime to commit.
  - bobthechef 9y ago
    Retribution is inherent to punishment and by extension justice. It simply makes no sense to claim otherwise. Mercy makes no sense unless we accept that. A judge cannot show leniency or mercy unless it is, first, acknowledged that the criminal deserves something commensurate with the crime, and second, there is a real, deserved possibility (at least in principle, even if never realized) of receiving one's just deserts. Premeditated murder deserves the death penalty as a matter of principle, though we can decide legally never to manifest that as punishment. Punishment has three purposes: retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence. We seem to be suffering from a contemporary bias against retribution [0]. However, these three purposes are intimately connected. When a punishment fits the crime, we communicate the severity of the crime to the criminal. In that way, we help facilitate rehabilitation by making it clear how grave his offense has been. Deterrence is facilitated by the same token. Obviously, these are not absolute measures. For example, a criminal may be unrepentant, but then rehabilitation is not possible. In any case, adequate remorse does not remove the possibility of retribution (though a sincerely remorseful criminal would accept that he deserves commensurate punishment), but it does allow for mercy. [0] A common confusion here is that retribution entails hatred of the punished. It does not.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]