11 ms·
Just Got Out of Prison. Now What?
- clamprecht 11y agoDo California's parole rules allow parolees to associate with ex-felons? When I was released (federal prison, not California), my conditions of supervised release prohibited me from associating with other ex-felons. This effectively makes illegal any kind of "support group" for newly-released people. Now that I'm way past my supervised release, I'm allowed to hang around a recently-released friend (14 years after my release), but he isn't allowed to hang around me because of the same rules. Weird system, it is.
- deftnerd 11y agoI think the rules apply to casual association to prevent former parolees from going back to the same social circles. I'm pretty sure the rules don't apply to official, especially court-ordered, encounters. Many parolees are required to go to AA or anger management classes, and those are full of other people in the same predicament. The same applies to halfway housing. I imagine that since this ride was under the control of an official non-profit, the contact was approved. I'm not a fan of the rules limiting free association and I think it should be considered a violation of civil liberties. I don't know if it's ever been challenged in the courts.
- maxerickson 11y agoRe some condition of parole being a violation of civil liberties, how would it be different than prison being a violation of civil liberties? I'm not snarking, I'm asking what the difference would be.
- mainguy 11y agoIANAL, but if parole is just a way to more cheaply supervise someone still serving their time it seems like the same thing... Once parole is over though...well then it would be because you've finished your sentence.
- clamprecht 11y agoIt isn't as bad after parole, but it's still there. For example, I have lost my 2nd amendment rights forever, even though I completed the sentence ~13 years ago.
- cmdrfred 11y agoI never noticed the asterisk on the constitution that said "*unless we deem that you are a criminal".
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 11y agoI'm surprised the NRA has never raised this issue.
- x0x0 11y agoMy understanding is that, because the convict could choose to finish his or her sentence instead, parole is given extremely wide latitude in terms of the conditions that can be set. That does set up other, stupid, situations where convicts who haven't been paroled and hence served their full sentences are given zero supervision after release because you can't force them. If you wish to be appalled, read this [1] discussing parole boards. For the same rationale as above, they are given incredibly wide latitude with very little review, and often no disclosure, behind their decisions. [1] https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/07/10/life-without-parole https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/07/10/life-without-p...
- tsotha 11y agoThis. Originally, at least, parole was viewed as a reduction in your sentence for keeping your nose clean while you were in prison. They let you out of jail, but technically your sentence isn't up yet. So legally they can pretty much do anything they could do while you were in.
- marincounty 11y agoIt's just a bad rule. Two felons get out of prison and want to start a landscaping company. A old truck, a few tools, and a craigslist ad; you have the beginnings of a company. The felons were probally friends in prison, and trust eachother? Give these two felons a chance? I understand the rule if the felon belonged to a gang Before being incarcerated. Keep the stipulation. The rest of the guys/girls should be allowed to associate with other ex-felons. Sometimes, those of us who are not in denial, are one mistake, at one wild/desperate period in our lives of racking up a felony? Why make it so difficult for ex-felons to succed after being let lose? I just don't get it. No wonder some of these guys want to go back to prison--institutionalized--they term it? No, they just don't want to die on the streets of homelessness! I had a 65 year old ex-felon as a friend for years. His felon was 45 years ago. He had a slight disability(enough to notice), and for years he collected disability. Some young doctor decided to not renew his disability claim. He told me, "I will commit a nonviolent crime in order to keep a roof over my head!". I talked him out of it, and we got a lawyer to reaffirm his disability claim. (Ironic side story. I came home today with a note on my door from the U.S. Office of personnel management federal investigation service. My neighbor is applying for a security clearance? This neighbor is the last person I would trust with anything--let alone a security clearance. No he's not a felon, but should be--he's white, and got lucky in his shady business dealings. Will I talk to a dective--No--I just don't care anymore. The felons, I have known, I trust--crazy--huh?
- searine 11y agoGreat article.
- mc32 11y agoAs many other problems for which we have half baked solutions, we don't take a systems approach to the issue. We simply want to punish and forget. It's dollars cheaper, but socially expensive. We could try more intervention, prevention, and while in, preparation to exit and productivity the whole time. We'd have fewer people in, those who went in would come out more productive and ready. Of course some people are just "bad" incurable, but that number should be far reduced. Most cons should not be treated as pariahs indefinitely, again, with some exceptions. But we should make a good effort to rehabilitate, perhaps, in addition to punishment. Punishment being paramount to victims but rehabilitation being paramount to society.
- Riseed 11y ago> It's dollars cheaper It's only dollars cheaper in the short term, and even then only if one takes a very narrow view of the issue(s). Helping people reintegrate into society can cut recidivism rates, as exemplified by Michigan's Prisoner Re-entry Program [0], which lowered the recidivism rate from 43.5% to 29% [1] and shrunk the state's prison population by 12% [2]. "If states could reduce their recidivism rates by just 10 percent, they could save more than $635 million combined in one year alone in averted prison costs." [2] Of course these programs cost money... but the Michigan program receives $12-20 million of funding per year, and has saved the state "hundreds of millions of dollars." [3] And there would also be savings in the areas of law enforcement, property damage, etc... [0] http://www.bhpi.org/?id=54&sid=1 http://www.bhpi.org/?id=54&sid=1 [1] http://michiganradio.org/term/michigan-prisoner-re-entry-program http://michiganradio.org/term/michigan-prisoner-re-entry-pro... [2] http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/state-of-recidivism http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/00... [3] http://michiganradio.org/post/snyder-administration-cut-program-has-saved-hundreds-millions-prison-costs http://michiganradio.org/post/snyder-administration-cut-prog...
- rayiner 11y ago> Hammock was sent away in 1994, at a time when stiff sentencing reforms around the country were piling more people into prison for longer amounts of time. These included California’s ‘‘three-strikes law,’’ which took effect just months before Hammock was arrested. The law imposed life sentences for almost any crime if the offender had two previous ‘‘serious’’ or ‘‘violent’’ convictions. (The definitions of ‘‘serious’’ and ‘‘violent’’ in California’s penal code are broad; attempting to steal a bicycle from someone’s garage is ‘‘serious.’’) One thing the article doesn't mention is that California's three strikes law was not the result of Corrections Corporation of America donating a bunch of money to influential state senators. It was voted-in based on public referendum with 71% support. So was Washington's, with even more public support. You can't get 70%+ of Americans to agree on anything, except apparently putting people in prison for life for potentially non-violent felonies.
- ectoplasm 11y agoYeah, but maybe it was the appeal to baseball that sealed it.
- _dark_matter_ 11y agoThis is what always amazed me about this law, even when it passed when I was a kid. It was based on what...a sport? Was there any evidence at the time that this was even effective?
- eastbayjake 11y agoThat seems like an uncharitable interpretation of the rationale behind these laws. One could argue -- completely divorced from sports analogies -- that the third time someone commits a serious crime they are exhibiting a pattern of lawless, antisocial behavior and not merely one-off offenses. (I still don't believe there's much evidence that this approach serves as a deterrent, and it certainly doesn't help rehabilitation to lump many different crimes together -- including non-violent ones like bicycle theft.)
- mullen 11y ago
- justwannasing 11y agoI find these articles interesting but get disturbed when the titles typically point the finger at me but, I have never been arrested, or in prison, and know no one who has ever been in such a situation in my 63 years of living. I am not in a closet or a holy roller either; nor are any of my friends or family. I live in a mid-sized city and grew up middle-class, became poor when out on my own, and am now well off. I would never put myself in such a situation to shame myself or my family or harm others. But I was brought up that way.
- happyscrappy 11y agoWell it is not politically correct to mention personal responsibility in any fashion, which is actually the heart of the problem.
- keyboardwarrior 11y agoPersonality grows out of the environment you are in. Teaching personal responsibility to someone who is on the street associating with gangs can be a lost cause. I think prison can serve to change someones environment to such levels that they are willing to change themselves. Maybe not 30 years of prison though.
- happyscrappy 11y agoParents have a lot to do with outcomes but that cannot be legislated.
- angersock 11y agoLike the personal responsibility not to shoot a guy with his hands out? Or the personal responsibility not to continually push for the hardest sentences you can because it'll help your career? Or the personal responsibility to recognize that what consenting adults put into their own bodies in privacy isn't something you should have a say in? One of those?
- 11y ago
- shaunrussell 11y agoget arrested, go back to prison
- eastbayjake 11y agoMalcolm Gladwell's excellent 2006 New Yorker article "Million Dollar Murray" directly addresses some of the grumbling in the comments below... it's easy for people who've followed the law to resent spending money on people who've broken the law, but it would be more efficient to spend a little money on decreasing recidivism and save a lot on incarceration. Gladwell sums it up nicely with an example from Denver's homelessness problems: "That is what is so perplexing about power-law homeless policy. From an economic perspective the approach makes perfect sense. But from a moral perspective it doesn’t seem fair. Thousands of people in the Denver area no doubt live day to day, work two or three jobs, and are eminently deserving of a helping hand—and no one offers them the key to a new apartment. Yet that’s just what the guy screaming obscenities and swigging Dr. Tich gets. When the welfare mom’s time on public assistance runs out, we cut her off. Yet when the homeless man trashes his apartment we give him another. Social benefits are supposed to have some kind of moral justification. We give them to widows and disabled veterans and poor mothers with small children. Giving the homeless guy passed out on the sidewalk an apartment has a different rationale. It’s simply about efficiency." http://gladwell.com/million-dollar-murray/ http://gladwell.com/million-dollar-murray/ EDIT: Changed "much of the grumbling" to "some"
- CONTRARlAN 11y agoFocusing on societal efficiency at the expense of other things seems like a good short-term solution, but a lousy long-term one.
- kiba 11y agoPlease demonstrate why this is lousy?
- candeira 11y agoNow apply to the Greek debt case. The Austerians are applying a value-ethics model. The proponents of debt restructuring/condonation are applying a consequentialist model. The Austerians' blindness to consequences will provoke a Greek exit from the Euro, and is turning many europeists in many other countries (me included) into euroskeptics. Same with many other rifts between ideology and evidence in policy. Abstinence-based sex education comes to mind. There are probably many others.
- thisispete 11y agoadmittedly didn't read the article, but assuming something like this might answer the question posed in the headline; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRZ2Sh5-XuM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRZ2Sh5-XuM
- thisispete 11y agoadmittedly didn't read the article, but assuming something like this might answer the question posed in the headline; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRZ2Sh5-XuM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRZ2Sh5-XuM
- tsotha 11y agoPersonally I'm all for harsh sentences for violent offenders, but once your sentence is up (for any crime) that should be the end of it. You should have all the rights non-incarcerated people have - free association, voting, gun ownership. On the jobs side I have no idea what the right thing to do is. On one hand if people with criminal records can't get jobs you're pretty much forcing them to return to a life of crime. But on the other hand... if I'm hiring people I'll only hire a guy with a serious criminal record if I can't find anyone else. That's just self preservation.
- zyxley 11y ago> Personally I'm all for harsh sentences for violent offenders Why? There's no clear evidence that particularly harsh sentences actually reduce recidivism.
- tsotha 11y agoI don't really care if it reduces recidivism or not. If you commit a violent crime you deserve to be in jail.
- waterlesscloud 11y agoWhat it does do is prevent the violent offenders from committing crimes against the citizenry for the duration of the sentence.
- danieltillett 11y agoIt would be nice if we could take the emotion out of what to do. My thought is we need to separate prisoners into two categories: 1. Those who will never be released. 2. Those that will be released one day. For the first category it does not matter what you do, but for the second we should be putting every effort into making sure they will be released a better person. Punish the first group as much as your morals think is appropriate, but punishing the second is counterproductive.