3 ms·

I wrote this in the comments on the article, but also wanted to share my thoughts with everyone here, please reply if you have something to say about what I'm a

I wrote this in the comments on the article, but also wanted to share my thoughts with everyone here, please reply if you have something to say about what I'm about to say, this is one of the topics in life that I haven't finished making conclusions on, it is terribly complicated and I'd love feedback on my mental process. Thanks. When someone goes to prison it's generally for a good reason, after the jury and trial and all that, it's safe to say then that these people forfeit their rights. That's what happens when you go against the rules of a society you belong to. I think everyone can agree with that. The trick is balance, sure it's not fair to blanket treat inmates all the same, however they cost us money to not just capitol-punishment the lot of them (a bad idea for moral reasons.) So they need to pay off their debt. But to go as far as to say they should be treated as if being away from everyone is their only punishment and that's already bad enough is a bit naive. Many people in prison did really bad things, like rape and murder, try telling the victims family in those cases that the inmate that killed their kid gets to get an education, a job, some savings for his release, cable TV, food, etc, etc. Tell them that and see what reaction you get. To be completely fair they did bad things, we need to keep that in mind, also the cheap labor could be used to help society. Cheap furniture/clothing/household items, etc for low income families comes to mind. I think the real solution is to be transparent about how much things cost, and we need to keep in mind that we can't allow for slave labor of prisoners just for those profits to go into CEO's pockets. If we are to do that then it needs to go to the potential rehabilitation of the inmate, and in dropping the costs so lower income people can save money on essentials that are made by inmates hands. PS: This is definitely one of the most thought provoking articles relating to inmates I've read in a long time.

drhayes9 14y ago
I don't think I'm disagreeing with the gist of your comment, but a couple of the ideas you put forward as givens freaked me out. We have to leave aside two unanswered statements in your comment: how many people in prison actually deserve to be there, and how many of their rights prisoners surrender by being convicted of a crime. I'd argue that one's human rights don't ever get revoked, but that's just me. What is the purpose of prison? I'd argue that it's a dual purpose: punishment and rehabilitation. Being away from everyone you've ever loved or known is a terrible punishment. Once you walk out of a prison years after you went in the world will have changed out from under you. Your babies are grown and won't know you. Your parents might have died. Your friends' lives have moved on without you. The rhythms of daily life are now foreign to you. The particulars of any specific penitentiary system might make this easier (visitation, parole, etc.), but this is pretty horrible. Why does someone commit a crime? Unless they are mentally unbalanced (which, in the US, is served by separate processes... e.g. pleading insanity), they have behaviors that are unacceptable outside of a set of social norms. Giving someone the opportunity to learn what society expects of them should be part of being in prison. Isn't education a great way to figure that out? Why should we be against someone trying to turn their life around after making some terrible choice? (Again, leaving aside questions of over-eager judicial systems e.g. the US' war on drugs)
- jeremyarussell 14y ago
  Human rights shouldn't get revoked, no doubt, they are still human after all. I'm referring to citizenship rights, like the right to a minimum wage as an example, or the right to have certain foods or religious needs met. At the end of the day most inmates took rights away from another, like in the case of rape, a girls right to say no. Or murder, a persons right to live. I would say in regards to rehabilitation that we teach them exactly what they need to know about society in order to cope with coming back in, I do agree that if someone spent that long without freedom, and they served their time, then they should be free when they get out, with all rights given back. I get that it's a terrible punishment to, sometimes worse then death for people that enjoy their freedom, I would argue that we continue to evolve what is the "correct" length of time for people to be in prison for one. And yeah we shouldn't be against someone turning their life around, but not to the extent that we waste resources on people getting a second chance, when there's a plethora of people still waiting for their first chance.
Mz 14y ago
Some thoughts: Jury nullification: Discrimination in some form or another plays such a large role in who goes to prison that we actually have a term in th U.S. for the process of trying to combat it with what amounts to legal civil disobedience. When a regime falls: I have heard it said that when a regime falls, the first thing that gets done is to release all the prisoners. Why? Because being in prison isn't about being a bad person. It is about violating the rules. I knew a man for a time who went to prison in his youth for his political activism. He was extremely idealistic. Like me, he was prone to being too honest for his own good. He was very clear that laws are written by humans and there is nothing inherently moral about them. They are, at best, only as wise and moral as the authors. Unfortunately, in most cases they are less wise and moral than that since getting passed at all may involve politicking and compromise. And in many case they are writen with no intent to be "fair" (such as Jim Crow laws). Best of luck in coming to some meaningful, informed conclusions.
- jeremyarussell 14y ago
  I can't agree more in regards to Jim Crow laws. Also the war on drugs. Prostitution (seems like a victimless crime to me.) Etc. etc. I'm mostly referring to prisoners that do things like kill, rape, extort, and pounce on another's freedom to pursue happiness and such.
  - Mz 14y ago
    The problem with your standard is that even in the case of murder and other violent crimes, sex, race and socioeconomic status (also influenced by race and gender) play a big role in who actually does time. As a woman, here is one example I am painfully aware of: A woman who defends herself with lethal force against a husband who has beaten her for years does more time on average than an abusive husband who finally goes too far and beats his wife to death. I can explain some of the reasons why that happens if you care to hear it. But the reasons do not change the fact that injustices happen daily in our legal system and many of our laws foster those injustices, to say nothing of the biases of judges and juries. Peace.
    - 14y ago

drhayes9 14y ago

I don't think I'm disagreeing with the gist of your comment, but a couple of the ideas you put forward as givens freaked me out. We have to leave aside two unanswered statements in your comment: how many people in prison actually deserve to be there, and how many of their rights prisoners surrender by being convicted of a crime. I'd argue that one's human rights don't ever get revoked, but that's just me. What is the purpose of prison? I'd argue that it's a dual purpose: punishment and rehabilitation. Being away from everyone you've ever loved or known is a terrible punishment. Once you walk out of a prison years after you went in the world will have changed out from under you. Your babies are grown and won't know you. Your parents might have died. Your friends' lives have moved on without you. The rhythms of daily life are now foreign to you. The particulars of any specific penitentiary system might make this easier (visitation, parole, etc.), but this is pretty horrible. Why does someone commit a crime? Unless they are mentally unbalanced (which, in the US, is served by separate processes... e.g. pleading insanity), they have behaviors that are unacceptable outside of a set of social norms. Giving someone the opportunity to learn what society expects of them should be part of being in prison. Isn't education a great way to figure that out? Why should we be against someone trying to turn their life around after making some terrible choice? (Again, leaving aside questions of over-eager judicial systems e.g. the US' war on drugs)

jeremyarussell 14y ago
Human rights shouldn't get revoked, no doubt, they are still human after all. I'm referring to citizenship rights, like the right to a minimum wage as an example, or the right to have certain foods or religious needs met. At the end of the day most inmates took rights away from another, like in the case of rape, a girls right to say no. Or murder, a persons right to live. I would say in regards to rehabilitation that we teach them exactly what they need to know about society in order to cope with coming back in, I do agree that if someone spent that long without freedom, and they served their time, then they should be free when they get out, with all rights given back. I get that it's a terrible punishment to, sometimes worse then death for people that enjoy their freedom, I would argue that we continue to evolve what is the "correct" length of time for people to be in prison for one. And yeah we shouldn't be against someone turning their life around, but not to the extent that we waste resources on people getting a second chance, when there's a plethora of people still waiting for their first chance.

Mz 14y ago

Some thoughts: Jury nullification: Discrimination in some form or another plays such a large role in who goes to prison that we actually have a term in th U.S. for the process of trying to combat it with what amounts to legal civil disobedience. When a regime falls: I have heard it said that when a regime falls, the first thing that gets done is to release all the prisoners. Why? Because being in prison isn't about being a bad person. It is about violating the rules. I knew a man for a time who went to prison in his youth for his political activism. He was extremely idealistic. Like me, he was prone to being too honest for his own good. He was very clear that laws are written by humans and there is nothing inherently moral about them. They are, at best, only as wise and moral as the authors. Unfortunately, in most cases they are less wise and moral than that since getting passed at all may involve politicking and compromise. And in many case they are writen with no intent to be "fair" (such as Jim Crow laws). Best of luck in coming to some meaningful, informed conclusions.

jeremyarussell 14y ago
I can't agree more in regards to Jim Crow laws. Also the war on drugs. Prostitution (seems like a victimless crime to me.) Etc. etc. I'm mostly referring to prisoners that do things like kill, rape, extort, and pounce on another's freedom to pursue happiness and such.
- Mz 14y ago
  The problem with your standard is that even in the case of murder and other violent crimes, sex, race and socioeconomic status (also influenced by race and gender) play a big role in who actually does time. As a woman, here is one example I am painfully aware of: A woman who defends herself with lethal force against a husband who has beaten her for years does more time on average than an abusive husband who finally goes too far and beats his wife to death. I can explain some of the reasons why that happens if you care to hear it. But the reasons do not change the fact that injustices happen daily in our legal system and many of our laws foster those injustices, to say nothing of the biases of judges and juries. Peace.
  - 14y ago