4 ms·

> they're in prison for a reason. Often that reason is "too poor to afford proper representation" or "looked vaguely like the actual criminal" or "took a plea

by macintux 10mo ago

> they're in prison for a reason. Often that reason is "too poor to afford proper representation" or "looked vaguely like the actual criminal" or "took a plea bargain because the justice system was threatening them with an immorally-long wait for a trial and a likely worse outcome".

ahmeneeroe-v2 10mo ago
Often that reason is "committed a horrific violent crime"
- lanyard-textile 10mo ago
  Often it is. Often it is not. Often, they too are a victim of our judicial system, and we can't just ignore them due to the peers we locked them in with.
- kelnos 10mo ago
  Not really? I mean, when you compare the number of people who have committed a "horrific violent" crime to the total number of people caught up in the US prison system, I expect it's not "often".
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 10mo ago
    The numbers are fuzzy but they indicate that at least a simple majority of (and possibly up to an extreme majority) of prisoners have committed violent crimes.
    - everforward 10mo ago
      That really depends on what you classify as “violent”. There are a lot of crimes labeled “violent” that don’t include direct physical harm to another person. Eg burglary is labeled as “violent” many places when the actual act was “smashed a window, grabbed a TV and ran away”. Drug manufacturing is also typically considered “violent” even without any kind of assault/murder/turf war/etc. The numbers I saw said 47% of inmates had a violent crime under federal or state classifications.
- Ylpertnodi 10mo ago
  Weed, though. In some states, now legal.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 10mo ago
    Non-violent marijuana users haven't ever materialized as a large cohort of the prison population. Sorry, I too used to believe that prisons were overflowing with them
    - azemetre 10mo ago
      I mean if this was the 90s, yes it was true but you are also correct that it's very rare for anyone to be in prison for just marijuana alone in the US. Even in states where it's "illegal."
MetaWhirledPeas 10mo ago
That doesn't justify ignoring our established punishments. Good luck with a system that sets everyone free just in case.
- macintux 10mo ago
  Where in the world did I imply that?
  - MetaWhirledPeas 10mo ago
    > Where in the world did I imply that? You didn't, but I'm taking your stance to its logical conclusion. GP: > they shouldnt be paid at all. they're in prison for a reason. they have a debt to society. Your response: > Often that reason is "too poor to afford proper representation" or "looked vaguely like the actual criminal" or "took a plea bargain because the justice system was threatening them with an immorally-long wait for a trial and a likely worse outcome". Be that as it may, this is our system. Through a series of laws we have defined due process for our people, and people who end up in prison are a result of this due process. Like it or not this is the best we were able to do. If we are going to say prisoners should be given more privileges because some prisoners do not deserve to be in there, then why are we holding them in a prison to begin with? Being confined to prison is a thousand times more punitive than not receiving pay for making a license plate. A better reason for arguing that prisoners should be paid for their work is because it is more humane. That's a better argument than some people are in prison unjustly. I'm actually in favor of prison reforms. Prisons' number one goal should be to reduce recidivism. I see that as the entire point of the prison system: reducing crime. If a person leaves prison and re-offends, we have failed to do our job.
- saghm 10mo ago
  Being paid for labor while imprisoned is not anywhere close to being set free.
- subscribed 10mo ago
  They're literally guilty and in the prison for the crime of being unable to afford a lawyer. That's the fact. You can't argue jail time is automatically fair only because it has been added in the sentencing. Its legal, and that's it. Civil forfeiture is also legal. Slavery was legal (and is still legal in us prisons). Doesn't make it justified.

ahmeneeroe-v2 10mo ago

Often that reason is "committed a horrific violent crime"

lanyard-textile 10mo ago
Often it is. Often it is not. Often, they too are a victim of our judicial system, and we can't just ignore them due to the peers we locked them in with.
kelnos 10mo ago
Not really? I mean, when you compare the number of people who have committed a "horrific violent" crime to the total number of people caught up in the US prison system, I expect it's not "often".
- ahmeneeroe-v2 10mo ago
  The numbers are fuzzy but they indicate that at least a simple majority of (and possibly up to an extreme majority) of prisoners have committed violent crimes.
  - everforward 10mo ago
    That really depends on what you classify as “violent”. There are a lot of crimes labeled “violent” that don’t include direct physical harm to another person. Eg burglary is labeled as “violent” many places when the actual act was “smashed a window, grabbed a TV and ran away”. Drug manufacturing is also typically considered “violent” even without any kind of assault/murder/turf war/etc. The numbers I saw said 47% of inmates had a violent crime under federal or state classifications.
Ylpertnodi 10mo ago
Weed, though. In some states, now legal.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 10mo ago
  Non-violent marijuana users haven't ever materialized as a large cohort of the prison population. Sorry, I too used to believe that prisons were overflowing with them
  - azemetre 10mo ago
    I mean if this was the 90s, yes it was true but you are also correct that it's very rare for anyone to be in prison for just marijuana alone in the US. Even in states where it's "illegal."

MetaWhirledPeas 10mo ago

That doesn't justify ignoring our established punishments. Good luck with a system that sets everyone free just in case.

macintux 10mo ago
Where in the world did I imply that?
- MetaWhirledPeas 10mo ago
  > Where in the world did I imply that? You didn't, but I'm taking your stance to its logical conclusion. GP: > they shouldnt be paid at all. they're in prison for a reason. they have a debt to society. Your response: > Often that reason is "too poor to afford proper representation" or "looked vaguely like the actual criminal" or "took a plea bargain because the justice system was threatening them with an immorally-long wait for a trial and a likely worse outcome". Be that as it may, this is our system. Through a series of laws we have defined due process for our people, and people who end up in prison are a result of this due process. Like it or not this is the best we were able to do. If we are going to say prisoners should be given more privileges because some prisoners do not deserve to be in there, then why are we holding them in a prison to begin with? Being confined to prison is a thousand times more punitive than not receiving pay for making a license plate. A better reason for arguing that prisoners should be paid for their work is because it is more humane. That's a better argument than some people are in prison unjustly. I'm actually in favor of prison reforms. Prisons' number one goal should be to reduce recidivism. I see that as the entire point of the prison system: reducing crime. If a person leaves prison and re-offends, we have failed to do our job.
saghm 10mo ago
Being paid for labor while imprisoned is not anywhere close to being set free.
subscribed 10mo ago
They're literally guilty and in the prison for the crime of being unable to afford a lawyer. That's the fact. You can't argue jail time is automatically fair only because it has been added in the sentencing. Its legal, and that's it. Civil forfeiture is also legal. Slavery was legal (and is still legal in us prisons). Doesn't make it justified.