13 ms·

I believe prisoners do have minimal rights, and to the extent feasible, should get a decent meal and perhaps reading material. Weights and playgrounds? Not so m

by lhnn 16y ago

I believe prisoners do have minimal rights, and to the extent feasible, should get a decent meal and perhaps reading material. Weights and playgrounds? Not so much. They should be busting rocks or chopping wood, or something else that is not fun. Make prison too cozy and beneficial, and you give an incentive for crime. Also, an alternative cost-cutter to triple bunking prisoners is to incarcerate fewer people, by decriminalizing victim-less acts (cough cough).

tomjen3 16y ago
I kinda agree with you on the first part, but if they should be allowed to read books, which are presumably fun or at least interesting to read, why not let them do "fun" exercises? It seems terribly inconsistent.
potatolicious 16y ago
And yet, study after study has shown that harsher punishments do little to deter crime, and that despite the poor state that prisons are in, and the conditions one experiences there, recidivism is still ridiculously high. I've heard the same argument for homelessness and their support structures - make homelessness too easy, who wants to work? I've always asked people who spout this nonsense to go take a look at a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen line - I regularly volunteer at both - and then come back and tell me with a straight face that anyone sane will deliberately put themselves in that situation. I'd tell you do so for prison, but that's not really plausible short of actually ending up in the big house. So instead, I'll urge you to go talk to some people who have been in prison, and figure out a little bit of what happens there. It is not "fun", nor is it any place a sane person would willingly and deliberately put themselves.
- randallsquared 16y ago
  You appear to be using "sane person" to mean "person who shares my values and goals".
- gyardley 16y ago
  But are prisons primarily for rehabilitation or deterrence? If someone were to hurt or kill someone close to me, I would want him to go to prison for punishment, if we couldn't just kill him and be done with it. When I think about this hypothetical person getting, say, programming lessons with my tax dollars, that only makes me angry. I assume prisons are how they are in part because my attitude is fairly common. None of the above diminishes the problems of wrongful convictions, cruel and unusual punishments, prison rape, victimless crimes, and so on.
  - icegreentea 16y ago
    They clearly are for both. You want the idea of going to prison to be on someone's mind when they seek out to commit a crime. And once they get there, you need to make sure a) they don't want to come back and b) they won't come back. When you consider the socio-economic background of most crime (especially physical theft and violent crime) in almost every developed country, you kinda realize that not providing with them the skills to get employed when they get out is outright just daring them get back into the system. You are right, there are limits. But these limits should not be set up by gut feelings. You gotta study the issue, and make the decision carefully to maximize good. Or else you end up with some hell hole of a system.
  - brown9-2 16y ago
    But are prisons primarily for rehabilitation or deterrence?If someone were to hurt or kill someone close to me, I would want him to go to prison for punishment, if we couldn't just kill him and be done with it And this is why the justice system is about punishing people in regards to what is best for society and the community/public as a whole, not judgments based on the need for personal retribution.
    - gyardley 16y ago
      True -- but don't forget that prisons exist as a replacement for retribution, which was often less accurate and had a tendency to escalate into open feuding between families, ethnic groups, or religious groups. If prisons aren't an adequate replacement for personal retribution, but a need for personal retribution still exists, the public will either correct the prisons or revert to their previous practices. I'm all for certain aspects of prison reform, but we mess with their role as punishment at our peril. As a side note, I suspect that the United States' use of the death penalty and comparatively poor prison conditions is largely due to its relatively recent history of vigilantism, the increased tendency of its people to distrust the government, and the relative predominance of firearms. The punishment aspect of prisons needs to be more pronounced in the United States than, say, Europe, in order to keep its citizenry content. I suspect there's also regional variations - in states where distrust of governmental authority is more predominant and vigilantism more recent and frequent, prisons are harsher and the death penalty used more.
iwwr 16y ago
I don't understand the downvotes. "Also, an alternative cost-cutter to triple bunking prisoners is to incarcerate fewer people, by decriminalizing victim-less acts (cough cough)." That's what most of the prisoners are guilty of anyway. "I believe prisoners do have minimal rights, and to the extent feasible, should get a decent meal and perhaps reading material. Weights and playgrounds? Not so much. They should be busting rocks or chopping wood, or something else that is not fun." The prison system is too much geared toward either punishment or rehabilitation. The prime concern should be restitution toward the victims, to the fullest extent possible. Then, if possible, prisoners should work to offset the cost of their own incarceration (excluding victimless offenders). So, if the prisoner is able to perform valuable work for that purpose, he should be allowed to, if possible from the confines of the prison. That said, punishment for punishment's sake is pure sadism. It only breeds hardier criminals. While it gives a victim some temporary relief, it creates future problems and future victims.

by lhnn 16y ago

tomjen3 16y ago

I kinda agree with you on the first part, but if they should be allowed to read books, which are presumably fun or at least interesting to read, why not let them do "fun" exercises? It seems terribly inconsistent.

potatolicious 16y ago

And yet, study after study has shown that harsher punishments do little to deter crime, and that despite the poor state that prisons are in, and the conditions one experiences there, recidivism is still ridiculously high. I've heard the same argument for homelessness and their support structures - make homelessness too easy, who wants to work? I've always asked people who spout this nonsense to go take a look at a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen line - I regularly volunteer at both - and then come back and tell me with a straight face that anyone sane will deliberately put themselves in that situation. I'd tell you do so for prison, but that's not really plausible short of actually ending up in the big house. So instead, I'll urge you to go talk to some people who have been in prison, and figure out a little bit of what happens there. It is not "fun", nor is it any place a sane person would willingly and deliberately put themselves.

randallsquared 16y ago
You appear to be using "sane person" to mean "person who shares my values and goals".
gyardley 16y ago
But are prisons primarily for rehabilitation or deterrence? If someone were to hurt or kill someone close to me, I would want him to go to prison for punishment, if we couldn't just kill him and be done with it. When I think about this hypothetical person getting, say, programming lessons with my tax dollars, that only makes me angry. I assume prisons are how they are in part because my attitude is fairly common. None of the above diminishes the problems of wrongful convictions, cruel and unusual punishments, prison rape, victimless crimes, and so on.
- icegreentea 16y ago
  They clearly are for both. You want the idea of going to prison to be on someone's mind when they seek out to commit a crime. And once they get there, you need to make sure a) they don't want to come back and b) they won't come back. When you consider the socio-economic background of most crime (especially physical theft and violent crime) in almost every developed country, you kinda realize that not providing with them the skills to get employed when they get out is outright just daring them get back into the system. You are right, there are limits. But these limits should not be set up by gut feelings. You gotta study the issue, and make the decision carefully to maximize good. Or else you end up with some hell hole of a system.
- brown9-2 16y ago
  But are prisons primarily for rehabilitation or deterrence?If someone were to hurt or kill someone close to me, I would want him to go to prison for punishment, if we couldn't just kill him and be done with it And this is why the justice system is about punishing people in regards to what is best for society and the community/public as a whole, not judgments based on the need for personal retribution.
  - gyardley 16y ago
    True -- but don't forget that prisons exist as a replacement for retribution, which was often less accurate and had a tendency to escalate into open feuding between families, ethnic groups, or religious groups. If prisons aren't an adequate replacement for personal retribution, but a need for personal retribution still exists, the public will either correct the prisons or revert to their previous practices. I'm all for certain aspects of prison reform, but we mess with their role as punishment at our peril. As a side note, I suspect that the United States' use of the death penalty and comparatively poor prison conditions is largely due to its relatively recent history of vigilantism, the increased tendency of its people to distrust the government, and the relative predominance of firearms. The punishment aspect of prisons needs to be more pronounced in the United States than, say, Europe, in order to keep its citizenry content. I suspect there's also regional variations - in states where distrust of governmental authority is more predominant and vigilantism more recent and frequent, prisons are harsher and the death penalty used more.

iwwr 16y ago

I don't understand the downvotes. "Also, an alternative cost-cutter to triple bunking prisoners is to incarcerate fewer people, by decriminalizing victim-less acts (cough cough)." That's what most of the prisoners are guilty of anyway. "I believe prisoners do have minimal rights, and to the extent feasible, should get a decent meal and perhaps reading material. Weights and playgrounds? Not so much. They should be busting rocks or chopping wood, or something else that is not fun." The prison system is too much geared toward either punishment or rehabilitation. The prime concern should be restitution toward the victims, to the fullest extent possible. Then, if possible, prisoners should work to offset the cost of their own incarceration (excluding victimless offenders). So, if the prisoner is able to perform valuable work for that purpose, he should be allowed to, if possible from the confines of the prison. That said, punishment for punishment's sake is pure sadism. It only breeds hardier criminals. While it gives a victim some temporary relief, it creates future problems and future victims.