6 ms·

The real issue, IMO, is not who owns or manages the prison, it is the laws we have on the books in the US that hinder or prevent individuals released from jails

The real issue, IMO, is not who owns or manages the prison, it is the laws we have on the books in the US that hinder or prevent individuals released from jails/prisons from becoming productive members of society. Often the easiest path for them is the path back to jail. For example, we expect an ex-offender to get out of jail, get a job, have a stable housing environment, pay taxes, and not break any more laws. Instead, we release individuals, hinder their ability to find gainful employment because of their arrest, deny them loans, deny access to public housing, tell them they can't go to some schools and deny them grants/scholarship opportunities for the ones they can, and then we tell them they can't vote in elections. While I am all for you do the crime you do the time, but when does that time end exactly? Do we tell someone that committed a non-violent petty felony at age 18, serves a year in jail, gets their HS diploma in that time, and is otherwise a decent person that even when they get out of jail they are no longer welcome in our society because of their crime? What do we as a society expect is going to happen to that person? And the cycle begins. There's a group that did a short film highlighting these issues: https://vimeo.com/121718382 https://vimeo.com/121718382 Ok, rant over :)

maxerickson 11y ago
The majority of US states eventually restore the right to vote: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286 http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0... Vermont and Maine allow prisoners to vote, 13 other states allow voting on release, and then some more restore the right after parole/probation. Many of the remaining states allow petitioning of the governor to restore the right to vote. (That felon voting is not particularly problematic in the states where it is allowed can be used as an argument against disenfranchisement, so I think it is good to try to accurately characterize the situation)
- jeffmould 11y ago
  Yes, you are right in that most states do have a path to restoring voting rights. But the fact that it is an issue at all is the problem. A non-violent ex-offender should not have to go through a process of petitioning, or even have to worry about having their voting rights restored at all, when their sentence is completed. Even automatic restoration is not always "sure thing". Florida for example used to have "automatic restoration" but it actually entailed filing with the clemency board and getting approved (although approval was pretty much a guarantee). Since then though, Florida, like some of the other states that have automatic restoration, has changed to add a waiting period and additional approvals. For non-violent felons that complete their sentence there should not be a wait. Using the Florida example, an 18 year old arrested for selling drugs on the street corner. Serves a year in jail. Gets out free/clear (meaning no parole or probation). Has to wait 5 years to have his right to vote restored. That is wrong in my opinion and only makes the situation worse. Disenfranchisement is a much bigger problem than people realize when it comes to elections. There are over 6 million adults in the US that are disenfranchised. Making the number worse is the hodgepodge of state laws across the country that lead to confusion. There are countless numbers above the 6 million that have no clue if they can vote at all, if their rights have been restored, or what is even required to get them restored. Yes, they can get lawyers to figure it out for them, but who is going to pay for that?
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    The page I linked has resources for each state. Maybe not always sufficiently detailed, but I think ex prisoners in Alaska probably understand what unconditional discharge means. The point of my reply is that you said and then we tell them they can't vote in elections, which does exactly what it complains about. Hearing that they probably can vote is going to get more people to look into it than overstatements of the disenfranchisement.
    - jeffmould 11y ago
      I am aware of the link and the laws, I actually run an advocacy group for ex-offenders nationwide, so pretty familiar with this topic. With Alaska I would beg to differ to some extent. The term "unconditional discharge" simply means no parole or probation. Alaska still has other restrictions though based on the type of felony that was actually committed. So while it may sound simple on the website it becomes convoluted in the actual law. As for my reply regarding saying they can't vote, I stated that here more as a generalization in the context of this discussion. You are right if you make that statement to an ex-offender it is going to have a negative context, whereas if you tell them they may be able to vote they are more apt to find out how. The fact remains though that the laws work against, and not for, the ex-offender upon release. My point was simply that we continue to punish through the laws of collateral consequences. If you want to see just how in-depth and convoluted collateral consequences can be, take a look at this site by the American Bar Association: http://www.abacollateralconsequences.org/ http://www.abacollateralconsequences.org/
Sideloader 11y ago
Private prisons are profit making enterprises. Keeping that in mind, how convenient that America's penal system is for many offenders a revolving door that keeps them locked away for decades if not life. Oh! And the prison industry has an influential lobby advocating on its behalf. Do you not see the problem here? Who owns and operates prisons is a very real issue indeed. I really wonder about this country and its dysfunctional and, frankly, dehumanizing institutions. We deny a significant minority of our citizens the most basic benefits of living in the world's most advanced society. And I'm not talking about the small minority of dangerous offenders that are justifiably kept in prison for life. We also have a difficult time admitting that the profit motive almost certainly guarantees a corrupt and unjust prison system.
- osconfused 11y ago
  We, as a nation, elected "tough on crime" politicians. As you already pointed out, the private prisons lobby. They lobby the politicians we as a nation elected. We have a democracy, we vote for tough on crime politicians. As a result, we imprison lots of people.
  - jeffmould 11y ago
    I partially agree that we do elect "tough on crime politicians" and we get what we elect. But part of the problem is that we also live in a reactive society instead of a proactive one. We react to incidents with tough laws that sound good when emotions are high and in the moment. Yet we fail to consider the long-term consequences of those laws, so 5-10 years down the road we face the real results of the law. We also live in a society where it is easy to be lazy with laws and take a zero-tolerance approach. I would characterize it more as we have "tough on crime politicians" who don't start that way, but over time become that way because of lobbying efforts and reelection campaigns.
  - programmarchy 11y ago
    This is propaganda designed to legitimize the actions of the individuals who are effectively using coercion and violence to enslave large parts of the population. If "We", as a "nation", elected pro slavery politicians, it wouldn't justify the owners of land and capital to enslave people. This would be the moral equivalent to a belief that some religious groups hold: that "We" are all born sinners, we all deserve to go to hell, but by the grace of god (the state), we can repent (vote) and accept the next savior (presidential candidate). Democracy, as you call it, is a religion based on the belief that elected groups of individuals have legitimate authority to totally violate basic human rights. In this case, an individual right not to be enslaved. But, in reality, nobody has a legitimate authority to enslave another person. Voting is participating in the delusion that the state has legitimate moral authority to imbue unrighteous people with righteousness in the first place. They don't. It doesn't matter if "well, we voted for it": the politicians, executives, as well as the employees and shareholders of these "sanctified" corporations are still morally responsible for their actions, and should be held accountable for their actions.
PythonicAlpha 11y ago
In the education/upbringing of children, it is a long known fact, that you will get what you expect. Tell a child, that it will fail over and over again, you will most likely get a failure. Tell a similar child from its birth over and over again that it will be a winner, you will get a person that is much more likely a winner than the other person. The US society today trains failures. It starts by being born in the wrong district of a city or belonging to the wrong race. When in such a case, you have no good family (eg. single mother), you have all odds against you. It goes on, by visiting the wrong school ...
- MichaelCrawford 11y ago
  While I was at Western State Hospital in Lakewood, Washington I puzzled over why so many of my fellow patients acted so childlike. For example when we waited in line for our meals, it was just like schoolchildren waiting in line, asking each other to hold their places while they stepped out, or saying "No cuts!" This was even the case among aged grandmothers. I very quickly realized that it was largely due to the way we were treated by the staff. For example if one refused to take one's medicine in the morning, one would not be permitted to smoke cigarettes in the exercise yard that day. If one refused in the evening, one would not be permitted a root beer float. At no point did any of the hospital staff explain to any of use WHY we were taking that medicine. It is far, far more important for the mentally ill to know why we take medicine, than it is for us to actually take it at all. If you treat someone like a child they will act like a child.
downandout 11y ago
It's actually worse than that. Most states and the federal system impose periods of supervision after release - often lasting for years. During this time, they aren't just expected to not break the law. They must find a job that their probation officer approves of, with an employer that is willing to give reports to the PO, and must disclose their conviction to all potential employers. They often cannot travel outside the county in which they reside, even for work. They cannot drink alcohol (even socially) in most cases. Their constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure are null and void, and must submit to searches any time and at any place they are. Those that were accused of financial crimes often are not allowed to possess checking accounts or credit/debit cards. They often must attend expensive classes & counseling sessions, and pay supervision fees, along with making any applicable restitution or payments on fines. These are just the basics that apply to everyone....there is an infinite list of conditions that can be imposed based upon the specific crime(s) they committed. If they violate any of these conditions, they are subject to immediate arrest and imprisonment, usually without any judicial review. This is one reason reincarceration rates are so high - it's incredibly easy for these people to be sent back to jail without even thinking of committing a new crime.
- omegaham 11y ago
  Yep. It's gotten bad enough that people will actually take a longer period of incarceration if it doesn't involve probation afterward. And good luck finding an employer who will hire a felon. Hell, good luck finding a landlord who will rent to you.
  - leesalminen 11y ago
    It really is that bad. I would've gladly taken 90 days in county jail vs. years of probation for a first offense misdemeanor. On the flip side, my county's jail offers yoga and fresh fruit daily.
  - nate_meurer 11y ago
    Landlord here. I won't rent to violent felons (murder, sexual assault, etc.) strictly as a liability issue. But I consider it an ethical and moral obligation to not discriminate against people convicted of crimes that don't reasonably make them a threat to the neighbors of my properties. I firmly believe that one of big drivers of recidivism is housing discrimination based on the mere presence of a criminal record. EDIT: cleaned up a bad sentence
dethstar 11y ago
> we expect an ex-offender to get out of jail, get a job, have a stable housing environment, pay taxes, and not break any more laws We expect an ex offender to be reformed, but that is not the role of prisons. 'Prison is a recruitment center for the army of crime. That is what it achieves. For 200 years everybody has been saying, "Prisons are failing; all they do is produce new criminals." I would say on the other hand, "They are a success, since that is what has been asked of them." ' https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/12/17/specials/foucault-prisons.html https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/12/17/specials/foucault-pri...
task_queue 11y ago
I agree with your point about how the law drops the ball when it comes to rehabilitation. A real issue IS who owns or manages the prisons. If the profit motive is what drives prison expansion, then society will experience a form of regulatory capture in hyperacceleration. Many of those programs and processes are being taken over by private entities. You are no long just paying out to your municipality, county, state or country. You're paying out to them and the private company who demands your payment or you go to back to prison for non-payment. They still profit and your debt racks up. You are paying out fees to the private company for your detention, your lodging, your processing and probation on top of what the state is paying them to hold you. If you cannot pay them back, you are free to spend a day in jail for each $10-$40 of your debt owed to your captors. They get to collect from the state as well. Then, with the money they've been collecting, the private entities go and lobby to make sure there is a steady stream of constant offenders to keep profits increasing every quarter. Sometimes it makes sense to bribe judges to send innocent children to your private juvenile detention center to collect those fat state grants, a la Cash for Kids. The profit motive perverts justice and seeks to turn everyone into customers of the private justice system.
- baddox 11y ago
  > A real issue IS who owns or manages the prisons. If the profit motive is what drives prison expansion, then society will experience a form of regulatory capture in hyperacceleration. The thing is, profit motive is there regardless of whether you call the prisons "private" or "public," because the people constructing, supplying, and running the prisons are (presumably) getting paid, and those people don't suddenly stop having personal incentives if you start calling them government employees.
  - task_queue 11y ago
    The people constructing the prisons also construct schools, hospitals and buildings that society needs. There isn't a lobby of people solely benefiting from the construction of prisons other than the owners that the prison is built for. Prison unions are a big problem, as well. They bring many of the same problems to the table. California's is a great example of just how easily these groups can manipulate the system for their benefit. The state at least can be swayed by representatives and public initiative. As an entity, it doesn't exist only to turn a profit. It isn't perfect, but handing the entire system over to people who only care about the bottom line will accelerate the problem.
rayiner 11y ago
The real issue is that we put too many people in jail for two long. And that's a legacy of laws passed in the crime waves of the 80s and 90s, back when for-profit prisons were almost non-existent. E.g. three strikes laws passed in the early 1990s.

maxerickson 11y ago

The majority of US states eventually restore the right to vote: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286 http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0... Vermont and Maine allow prisoners to vote, 13 other states allow voting on release, and then some more restore the right after parole/probation. Many of the remaining states allow petitioning of the governor to restore the right to vote. (That felon voting is not particularly problematic in the states where it is allowed can be used as an argument against disenfranchisement, so I think it is good to try to accurately characterize the situation)

jeffmould 11y ago
Yes, you are right in that most states do have a path to restoring voting rights. But the fact that it is an issue at all is the problem. A non-violent ex-offender should not have to go through a process of petitioning, or even have to worry about having their voting rights restored at all, when their sentence is completed. Even automatic restoration is not always "sure thing". Florida for example used to have "automatic restoration" but it actually entailed filing with the clemency board and getting approved (although approval was pretty much a guarantee). Since then though, Florida, like some of the other states that have automatic restoration, has changed to add a waiting period and additional approvals. For non-violent felons that complete their sentence there should not be a wait. Using the Florida example, an 18 year old arrested for selling drugs on the street corner. Serves a year in jail. Gets out free/clear (meaning no parole or probation). Has to wait 5 years to have his right to vote restored. That is wrong in my opinion and only makes the situation worse. Disenfranchisement is a much bigger problem than people realize when it comes to elections. There are over 6 million adults in the US that are disenfranchised. Making the number worse is the hodgepodge of state laws across the country that lead to confusion. There are countless numbers above the 6 million that have no clue if they can vote at all, if their rights have been restored, or what is even required to get them restored. Yes, they can get lawyers to figure it out for them, but who is going to pay for that?
- maxerickson 11y ago
  The page I linked has resources for each state. Maybe not always sufficiently detailed, but I think ex prisoners in Alaska probably understand what unconditional discharge means. The point of my reply is that you said and then we tell them they can't vote in elections, which does exactly what it complains about. Hearing that they probably can vote is going to get more people to look into it than overstatements of the disenfranchisement.
  - jeffmould 11y ago
    I am aware of the link and the laws, I actually run an advocacy group for ex-offenders nationwide, so pretty familiar with this topic. With Alaska I would beg to differ to some extent. The term "unconditional discharge" simply means no parole or probation. Alaska still has other restrictions though based on the type of felony that was actually committed. So while it may sound simple on the website it becomes convoluted in the actual law. As for my reply regarding saying they can't vote, I stated that here more as a generalization in the context of this discussion. You are right if you make that statement to an ex-offender it is going to have a negative context, whereas if you tell them they may be able to vote they are more apt to find out how. The fact remains though that the laws work against, and not for, the ex-offender upon release. My point was simply that we continue to punish through the laws of collateral consequences. If you want to see just how in-depth and convoluted collateral consequences can be, take a look at this site by the American Bar Association: http://www.abacollateralconsequences.org/ http://www.abacollateralconsequences.org/

Sideloader 11y ago

Private prisons are profit making enterprises. Keeping that in mind, how convenient that America's penal system is for many offenders a revolving door that keeps them locked away for decades if not life. Oh! And the prison industry has an influential lobby advocating on its behalf. Do you not see the problem here? Who owns and operates prisons is a very real issue indeed. I really wonder about this country and its dysfunctional and, frankly, dehumanizing institutions. We deny a significant minority of our citizens the most basic benefits of living in the world's most advanced society. And I'm not talking about the small minority of dangerous offenders that are justifiably kept in prison for life. We also have a difficult time admitting that the profit motive almost certainly guarantees a corrupt and unjust prison system.

osconfused 11y ago
We, as a nation, elected "tough on crime" politicians. As you already pointed out, the private prisons lobby. They lobby the politicians we as a nation elected. We have a democracy, we vote for tough on crime politicians. As a result, we imprison lots of people.
- jeffmould 11y ago
  I partially agree that we do elect "tough on crime politicians" and we get what we elect. But part of the problem is that we also live in a reactive society instead of a proactive one. We react to incidents with tough laws that sound good when emotions are high and in the moment. Yet we fail to consider the long-term consequences of those laws, so 5-10 years down the road we face the real results of the law. We also live in a society where it is easy to be lazy with laws and take a zero-tolerance approach. I would characterize it more as we have "tough on crime politicians" who don't start that way, but over time become that way because of lobbying efforts and reelection campaigns.
- programmarchy 11y ago
  This is propaganda designed to legitimize the actions of the individuals who are effectively using coercion and violence to enslave large parts of the population. If "We", as a "nation", elected pro slavery politicians, it wouldn't justify the owners of land and capital to enslave people. This would be the moral equivalent to a belief that some religious groups hold: that "We" are all born sinners, we all deserve to go to hell, but by the grace of god (the state), we can repent (vote) and accept the next savior (presidential candidate). Democracy, as you call it, is a religion based on the belief that elected groups of individuals have legitimate authority to totally violate basic human rights. In this case, an individual right not to be enslaved. But, in reality, nobody has a legitimate authority to enslave another person. Voting is participating in the delusion that the state has legitimate moral authority to imbue unrighteous people with righteousness in the first place. They don't. It doesn't matter if "well, we voted for it": the politicians, executives, as well as the employees and shareholders of these "sanctified" corporations are still morally responsible for their actions, and should be held accountable for their actions.

PythonicAlpha 11y ago

In the education/upbringing of children, it is a long known fact, that you will get what you expect. Tell a child, that it will fail over and over again, you will most likely get a failure. Tell a similar child from its birth over and over again that it will be a winner, you will get a person that is much more likely a winner than the other person. The US society today trains failures. It starts by being born in the wrong district of a city or belonging to the wrong race. When in such a case, you have no good family (eg. single mother), you have all odds against you. It goes on, by visiting the wrong school ...

MichaelCrawford 11y ago
While I was at Western State Hospital in Lakewood, Washington I puzzled over why so many of my fellow patients acted so childlike. For example when we waited in line for our meals, it was just like schoolchildren waiting in line, asking each other to hold their places while they stepped out, or saying "No cuts!" This was even the case among aged grandmothers. I very quickly realized that it was largely due to the way we were treated by the staff. For example if one refused to take one's medicine in the morning, one would not be permitted to smoke cigarettes in the exercise yard that day. If one refused in the evening, one would not be permitted a root beer float. At no point did any of the hospital staff explain to any of use WHY we were taking that medicine. It is far, far more important for the mentally ill to know why we take medicine, than it is for us to actually take it at all. If you treat someone like a child they will act like a child.

downandout 11y ago

It's actually worse than that. Most states and the federal system impose periods of supervision after release - often lasting for years. During this time, they aren't just expected to not break the law. They must find a job that their probation officer approves of, with an employer that is willing to give reports to the PO, and must disclose their conviction to all potential employers. They often cannot travel outside the county in which they reside, even for work. They cannot drink alcohol (even socially) in most cases. Their constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure are null and void, and must submit to searches any time and at any place they are. Those that were accused of financial crimes often are not allowed to possess checking accounts or credit/debit cards. They often must attend expensive classes & counseling sessions, and pay supervision fees, along with making any applicable restitution or payments on fines. These are just the basics that apply to everyone....there is an infinite list of conditions that can be imposed based upon the specific crime(s) they committed. If they violate any of these conditions, they are subject to immediate arrest and imprisonment, usually without any judicial review. This is one reason reincarceration rates are so high - it's incredibly easy for these people to be sent back to jail without even thinking of committing a new crime.

omegaham 11y ago
Yep. It's gotten bad enough that people will actually take a longer period of incarceration if it doesn't involve probation afterward. And good luck finding an employer who will hire a felon. Hell, good luck finding a landlord who will rent to you.
- leesalminen 11y ago
  It really is that bad. I would've gladly taken 90 days in county jail vs. years of probation for a first offense misdemeanor. On the flip side, my county's jail offers yoga and fresh fruit daily.
- nate_meurer 11y ago
  Landlord here. I won't rent to violent felons (murder, sexual assault, etc.) strictly as a liability issue. But I consider it an ethical and moral obligation to not discriminate against people convicted of crimes that don't reasonably make them a threat to the neighbors of my properties. I firmly believe that one of big drivers of recidivism is housing discrimination based on the mere presence of a criminal record. EDIT: cleaned up a bad sentence

dethstar 11y ago

> we expect an ex-offender to get out of jail, get a job, have a stable housing environment, pay taxes, and not break any more laws We expect an ex offender to be reformed, but that is not the role of prisons. 'Prison is a recruitment center for the army of crime. That is what it achieves. For 200 years everybody has been saying, "Prisons are failing; all they do is produce new criminals." I would say on the other hand, "They are a success, since that is what has been asked of them." ' https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/12/17/specials/foucault-prisons.html https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/12/17/specials/foucault-pri...

task_queue 11y ago

I agree with your point about how the law drops the ball when it comes to rehabilitation. A real issue IS who owns or manages the prisons. If the profit motive is what drives prison expansion, then society will experience a form of regulatory capture in hyperacceleration. Many of those programs and processes are being taken over by private entities. You are no long just paying out to your municipality, county, state or country. You're paying out to them and the private company who demands your payment or you go to back to prison for non-payment. They still profit and your debt racks up. You are paying out fees to the private company for your detention, your lodging, your processing and probation on top of what the state is paying them to hold you. If you cannot pay them back, you are free to spend a day in jail for each $10-$40 of your debt owed to your captors. They get to collect from the state as well. Then, with the money they've been collecting, the private entities go and lobby to make sure there is a steady stream of constant offenders to keep profits increasing every quarter. Sometimes it makes sense to bribe judges to send innocent children to your private juvenile detention center to collect those fat state grants, a la Cash for Kids. The profit motive perverts justice and seeks to turn everyone into customers of the private justice system.

baddox 11y ago
> A real issue IS who owns or manages the prisons. If the profit motive is what drives prison expansion, then society will experience a form of regulatory capture in hyperacceleration. The thing is, profit motive is there regardless of whether you call the prisons "private" or "public," because the people constructing, supplying, and running the prisons are (presumably) getting paid, and those people don't suddenly stop having personal incentives if you start calling them government employees.
- task_queue 11y ago
  The people constructing the prisons also construct schools, hospitals and buildings that society needs. There isn't a lobby of people solely benefiting from the construction of prisons other than the owners that the prison is built for. Prison unions are a big problem, as well. They bring many of the same problems to the table. California's is a great example of just how easily these groups can manipulate the system for their benefit. The state at least can be swayed by representatives and public initiative. As an entity, it doesn't exist only to turn a profit. It isn't perfect, but handing the entire system over to people who only care about the bottom line will accelerate the problem.

rayiner 11y ago

The real issue is that we put too many people in jail for two long. And that's a legacy of laws passed in the crime waves of the 80s and 90s, back when for-profit prisons were almost non-existent. E.g. three strikes laws passed in the early 1990s.