Does the US Prison System Need Reform?

[lizzie]

US: Federal Statistics Show Widespread Prison Rape | Human Rights Watch





Now obviously the below quotes are talking about a particular jail but I wanted to use it to show that while complete corruption may not affect every prison it cannot be ruled out.

» Prison guards, inmate detail brutality inside jail





Accounts from former staff:









So yes our system needs to be reformed! No human should be subjugated to such treatment much less be forced to live years or decades of it.

I agree completely. Our prisons are cesspools of human degenerates, in many cases, and the staff seem to turn a blind eye. That being said, it's not just the supervising staff of the inmates, but it goes all the way to the top tiers of governing officials, and it's a disgrace.

I would favor separation of non-violent from violent criminals, and I would favor strict behavioral standards inside the prison walls.

 

[jamesrage]

I'm asking about the psychological implications of living in an environment like that for decades. It's like coming back from a 40-year tour of Vietnam. How can a ex-convict, who has served their time, be expected to be able to adjust to civil society after being in a warzone state of mind for so long?

You are comparing prison to warfare?

In that respect, our prison system is failing. Instead of rehabilitating prisoners to be able to go back to society, we are sending them out with a prison mentality. Most convicts released end up back in prison. Three strike laws ensure that many stay in prisons for life. My concern is prisons are turning into just warehouses to house criminals for their entire lives basically. The constant stream of people being put in prison is growing, not shrinking.

Perhaps their last year or two in prison should focus on job training and how not to be a piece of ****.

So really the question is, is our justice based on rehabilitation or punishment?

The primary goal of our justice system should be punishment,rehabilitation should be a secondary goal. Rehabilitation shouldn't take 10-40 years.

Is the goal of prisons to attempt to rehabilitate criminals in order to be released, or is the goal of prisons to simply keep bad people away from society? One seems more sustainable, cheaper and better for society than the other.

The goal of prison is punishment, just like community service, fines and the death penalty are all various forms of punishment.

Like I said in the OP, drugs and parole offenses are the main things that land people in prison. Seems like the issue is whether or not our anti-drug laws and our parole standards are the main culprit in putting so many people in prison.


Police are very good at catching true crimes and their perpetrators, no doubt. That, to me, is a good use of our police and prison systems. But gain, the plurality of people in prison are not incarcerated for these offenses. If we have such severe overcrowding in our prisons, why are we taking up so much room for the murderers and rapists with drug addicts who can't stay clean and parolees who got sent back to prisons on a technicality on his parole?

Most of this looks like a anti-war on drugs rant so I won't even bother to address that.As for parole violations these people were given a chance to straighten up.The judge went against his or her better judgement and gave these people a change and these parolees squandered their chance.So yes they should be locked up when they violate their parole.

It's not absurd in the light of how much each of these non-violent lock ups occur. I won't even get into the moral aspect of locking up non-violent offenders. Just the cost alone is a powerful argument.

SO you don't think someone who stole millions of dollars from many people and ruined their livelihoods,someone who has ripped off the life savings of elderly people or has committed lots of fraud does not deserve time behind bars?

It's the current status of what action is a misdemeanor and which is a felony that is of concern to me.

Like what specifically?

Granted, we do have a very low crime rate, thanks IN PART to our lock 'em up mentality leftover from the crime panic of the late 80's/early 90's.

But if crime rates are dropping, why are federal incarceration rates still higher than they were when crime rates were higher? Am I missing some piece of correlated data?

Because most of those criminals are being locked up is why crime is decreasing and incarceration rates are increasing. If I take most of the fruit on the table and put it in a bowl then the amount of fruit in the bowl has just increased while the fruit on the table has decreased.

 

[radcen]

As I have mentioned a number of times here a close relative of mine spent time in prison and have shared many accounts of prison life and abuses. I have to some degree received a bit of skepticism particularly when talking about staff abuse of inmates. My last conversation on the subject with them they told me of the treatment that child predators received. Now I think most agree that these people are the low of the low and many may feel that no treatment is harsh enough for them however I feel even these people should be protected and left to serve their sentence in safety from both fellow inmates and staff alike.

They told me of one account where a new inmate was going threw their initiation his first day in prison. The prison official that was overseeing the procedure looked at the mans paperwork and saw that this man was convicted of child molestation. He then asked the inmate to stand up and face the wall, once the new inmate was facing the wall the officer picked up the chair he was sitting on and smashed the inmate in the back of the head with it. The other officials in the room gave no reaction to this and acted as nothing had happened. They told me that in the facilities that they were in that it was pretty much the norm for prison officials to simply ignore reports of abuses received by those that have commit crimes against children and in some cases the officials themselves instigated abuses against such people. In short people in prison for crimes against children lived a life of pure hell where each and every day they lived in fear of their lives and were constantly victims of beatings, rapes, and other mistreatment and had no where to turn for protection, even prison officials. Now before you scoff at this let me post a few reports.

US: Federal Statistics Show Widespread Prison Rape | Human Rights Watch

Now obviously the below quotes are talking about a particular jail but I wanted to use it to show that while complete corruption may not affect every prison it cannot be ruled out.

» Prison guards, inmate detail brutality inside jail

Accounts from former staff:

So yes our system needs to be reformed! No human should be subjugated to such treatment much less be forced to live years or decades of it.

Criminal behavior is no less criminal, and no less deserving of punishment, simply because the person if on the system's side of the aisle.

 

[radcen]

My thoughts on prison reform...

- Individual 8'x10' cells.
- You stay in your cell 24/7, allowed out twice a week for showers and/or exercise. Only one inmate at a time. Even meals would be delivered. This would eliminate inmate-on-inmate violence.
- Everything outside the cell is caught on video. This would (should) eliminate guard favoritism.
- I have no issue with an inmate having as much reading material as they can handle. Even magazine subscriptions... provided all costs are born by the inmate or friends/family of the inmate. No cost whatsoever to the prison. To deny reading material is just petty. Magazines and such from an approved list. If a guy wants to read National Geographic, or Sports Illustrated, no problem. Knock yerself out. Guns & Ammo? No. Don't even ask. All reading material will be destroyed when finished, eliminating coded messages being sent to gang members, etc.
- One visit per month, not counting attorney visits.

 

[EnigmaIncognito]

My ideas for prison reformation:

-The full scale elimination of "tough on crime", three strikes laws, and mandatory sentencing. None of these policies have done anything beside worsen the over-population of prisons.

-Decriminalization of drug use; those who abuse drugs, or commit certain offences (not things like murder or armed robbery) as a result of their drug use should be sent to special drug rehab facilities instead.

-Completely decriminalize any and all victimless crimes.

-Each type of crime should have a different focus in terms of a solution; rehabilitation for crimes that warrant it, punishment for the crimes that warrant it, etc.

-Decrease prison sentences to a necessary minimum for lesser crimes. Allow particular circumstances of certain crimes to result in a lesser sentence for the criminal, if the reason behind committing the crime is understandable of possibly justified.

-No two inmates may share the same cell; or alternatively there should be security cameras in every room of the facility. Under the single cell policy, socialization between inmates may be allowed if the inmate wants to. Under the camera policy, prison rape is an offense punishable by death.

-Have programs installed to ensure that criminals of certain crimes are given access to educational resources, skill training, and other means designed to assist them within the real world.

-Create a new social policy where all criminals released from prison will have no public criminal record (safe actual sex offenders) that prevents them from acquiring a job or productively living in a society.

-Bring back the chain gang, or rather working programs that have the prisoners do something productive (as well as build up self discipline).

-Death penalty for the worst of the worst scum.

We need a three tiered prison system.

Tier one is for non-violent, or property crimes, that should require a fine as the primary sentence, if the person can not (or will not) pay the fine, then they should be locked up in a work realease facility, where they are released ONLY to work, and must return every day after their work shift, a portion of their wages is taken by the state to pay for housing them and paying the fine/victim restitution. When the sentence is fullfilled (the total dollar amount is reached), then they are released (note: it is possible to do "life" here too). Escape from tier one is considered a violent offfense, and they advance to tier two.

Tier two is for violent offenders and they must serve every day of their assigned sentence(s), no time off for good behavior, but time added for rule infractions or other crimes committed while locked up. Education and job training, including modest pay for any jobs done inside the prison, may be offered here but only to those willing to cooperate fully and maintain perfect behavior while locked up. Only first time and second time offenders are housed here, that have release dates within their "normal" life expectancy, all others go to tier three.

Tier three is for total losers, those with two prior tier two convictions, or that have committed crimes that warrant the LWOP sentence for their latest offense. There is NO EXIT from the tier three prison. The facility should be punative only, no training, recreation or any other amenities, beyond subsistance level meals, legal books (for appeal preparation) and basic hygene. A high rise structure would be preferred, as above the 5th floor no bars on windows are even needed, since escape by jumping would not be practical. As the prison fills, or inmates commit rule violations or other crimes, inmates are moved to ever higher floors. Once the prison is 90% full, allowing for new arrivals and maintanence of cell blocks, then those prisoners that are on the top floor are executed, either by "humane" means or other means, as voted on by the other tier three inmates. Those with friends and familiy inside a tier three prison may wish to donate funds to build more such towers, to keep their favorite inmates alive for a bit longer.

We already divide prisons by means of criminal severity; minimum, medium, and maximum. Would your suggestion be that the three be combined into one overall building? If so, what practial use would that accomplish (beyond the worst offenders not being able to jump from a 5 story building)?

 

[Baralis]

My thoughts on prison reform...

- Individual 8'x10' cells.
- You stay in your cell 24/7, allowed out twice a week for showers and/or exercise. Only one inmate at a time. Even meals would be delivered. This would eliminate inmate-on-inmate violence.
- Everything outside the cell is caught on video. This would (should) eliminate guard favoritism.
- I have no issue with an inmate having as much reading material as they can handle. Even magazine subscriptions... provided all costs are born by the inmate or friends/family of the inmate. No cost whatsoever to the prison. To deny reading material is just petty. Magazines and such from an approved list. If a guy wants to read National Geographic, or Sports Illustrated, no problem. Knock yerself out. Guns & Ammo? No. Don't even ask. All reading material will be destroyed when finished, eliminating coded messages being sent to gang members, etc.
- One visit per month, not counting attorney visits.

I agree with your idea for the most part but only for those inmates who refuse to be productive or cause trouble/commit further crimes. When I think of reform I envision a working self sufficient community where inmate labor is used. Inmates regardless of crime who show they are willing to contribute and behave can work a full time job and receive a small wage. Prisons could grow all of their own food and manufacture goods that can be sold to pay for all other expenses.


3 tiered prison:

-Super max area for the troublesome inmates. Complete inmate segregation and minimal staff contact. No recreation other then reading.

-Medium security prison. Each inmate has own cell and must work or go to a super max, the prison has a large manufacturing facility(s) and can produce goods. Inmates here receive a small wage, daily counseling, job training, educational classes (all payed for by sold goods). Inmates are allowed to interact if they chose to during designated times.

-Minimum security prison, only for the best behaved prisoners who have a long record of following the rules. More like a closed living community with farms and livestock where everyone has a job. Similar to a normal life except you cannot leave the grounds (some restrictions of course). Food raised here feeds the prison.

 

[radcen]

I agree with your idea for the most part but only for those inmates who refuse to be productive or cause trouble/commit further crimes. When I think of reform I envision a working self sufficient community where inmate labor is used. Inmates regardless of crime who show they are willing to contribute and behave can work a full time job and receive a small wage. Prisons could grow all of their own food and manufacture goods that can be sold to pay for all other expenses.

3 tiered prison:

-Super max area for the troublesome inmates. Complete inmate segregation and minimal staff contact. No recreation other then reading.

-Medium security prison. Each inmate has own cell and must work or go to a super max, the prison has a large manufacturing facility(s) and can produce goods. Inmates here receive a small wage, daily counseling, job training, educational classes (all payed for by sold goods). Inmates are allowed to interact if they chose to during designated times.

-Minimum security prison, only for the best behaved prisoners who have a long record of following the rules. More like a closed living community with farms and livestock where everyone has a job. Similar to a normal life except you cannot leave the grounds (some restrictions of course). Food raised here feeds the prison.

I'd be against a manufacturing facility if it sells it's items outside the prison. I don't think it's fair to other businesspeople to have competition from a prison that have an unfair advantage with low wages. If the items it makes are for use solely within the prison, or for something for the state like vehicle license plate making... essentially, not competing with outside businesses... I'd be fine with it.

 

[lpast]

I think there are several issues at work here, and it's not necessarily so linear.

First, I don't doubt that cigarette running increased when prices increased, but prices increased primarily due to taxes increasing, not so much the cost of cigarettes itself. In a sense, our leaders themselves created the problem of cigarette running.

Second, regarding drugs, I think there's a difference between legalizing and "decriminalization". Most people talk of decriminalization over legalization, yet there is a difference. A significant difference. Unless our leaders tax the crap out of them, which they very well might as they have done with tobacco and alcohol, I don't think drug prices would go up if drugs were legalized. In fact, I think they would come down. Manufacture and distribution would be more efficient because it would then be more open. No more "turf wars" and stuff like that. You could drive down a rural highway and see marijuana fields intermingled with corn and soybean fields.

If we were to go the decriminalization route, however, then nothing really changes in a meaningful sense other than some punishment aspects after-the-fact being eliminated. The criminal element stays in place because it has to, it is technically still illegal. The "bad guys" stay in charge of the supply, they still fight with each other for "market share", etc., and yes, prices stay high.

You said it yourself....taxs and just our good ole capitolism will make them go SKY HIGH...the people making the legal drugs..will pay taxs and make a profit...the middle man will make a profit and pay taxs...the retailer will make more profit and the feds will take their share...the state will taketheir share than take another share in sales tax, then the county gets their share and the local govt....if you decriminalize drug use...the crime to get them will still have the same individuals in prison and all the reasons addicts wind up in prison cuz of drug use will still happen...solves nothing

 

[Dittohead not!]

Here's how I'd reform prisons:

First, there wouldn't be any set number of years. If the crime is so heinous that he prisoner can never be let out, then let him spend the r est of his life in a supermax. If not, then I'd sentence them to so much hard labor.

While doing their hard labor, they could live in tents surrounded by barbed wire, electrified, of course, razor wire on top, and machine gun nests. To make sure any escapee would be soon caught, I plant a GPS in them somewhere.

All prisoners would be sentenced to a set amount of hard labor, be it hauling so many tons of gravel to fill in levies, perhaps breaking rocks, maybe digging ditches, whatever needs to be done. No mechanized work need be done, all hand labor.

If the prisoner won't do his assignment, if he fights with other inmates, tries to escape, then he will wind up considered incorrigible and placed in the supermax for life.

Once the prisoner has done his hard labor, he will be released. The GPS will stay just in case he decides that a life of crime is a good idea after all.

Oh, yes, and those pot smokers, drug dealers, etc? Decriminalize that. Why would I want to pay to keep some doobie smoker locked up anyway? Legalize it and let them out, for heaven sake. We can't afford to keep so many prisoners locked up.

We'd save a ton of money and decrease recividism to a minimum, guaranteed.

 

[Baralis]

I'd be against a manufacturing facility if it sells it's items outside the prison. I don't think it's fair to other businesspeople to have competition from a prison that have an unfair advantage with low wages. If the items it makes are for use solely within the prison, or for something for the state like vehicle license plate making... essentially, not competing with outside businesses... I'd be fine with it.

I would be ok with selling to private businesses however the manufacturing would be leased to private business and not government owned. They would get tax breaks for going to the trouble of running the manufacturing in a prison. They would then pay the state the same labor costs as other private business of the same type. The state would then use all but the minimal prisoner wage and apply it only towards prison expenses.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Absolutely. One way to reform is to reform our failed war on drugs.

 

[wolfman24]

Hello

the penal system is broken. its nothing more than univesities of crime. A pot user goes in a burglar comes out.

Before I begin I would like to explain. I beleive in the Constitution but think that some parts need changing for various reasons. The following is my opinion (fanciful I agree) but day dreaming has its purposes.

I think we could revamp the system in various ways

1. Have more boot camps for kids on the edge with less yelling.
2. Real rehab facilities for minor offenders who could be trained to get a diploma (GED or other)and or learn a trade
3 For some minor offenses employ them in 'new deal" type operations, WPA, CCC, etc. Have them learn personal responsibility and what a job feels like
4. Stop the 3 strikes your out except of crimes of property, personal attacks, violence etc Serious stuff!
5. Create some type of penal facility (colony if you like) in remote areas where there is surface or groundwater available. Provide the basic necessities of life in these facilities but also provide the tools and materials to get better. Put the gangs and hardened criminals in them and let them work it out. Prisons teach the irresponsible to be more so. they teach nothing constructive and have not for a long time.
if the "bad Guys" can't work together and figure something out give them one more chance and if they screw that up tough.

Again this is daydreaming because the public will never buy into it. but continuing to build prisons is ludicrous. At some point the penology budget will exceed the DOD.

thanks

Wolfman 24

 

[Running_Riot]

I think the prison system could be made to where it's so terrifying of an experience nobody ever goes back, like an indoctrination center built around punishment. I also disagree with prisoner rations and exercise allowances. A terrible yet pretty accurate example would be the Kwanliso system in North Korea. I don't agree with the extremely insufficient rations there, but I think that they should be limited so that prisoners can't maintain muscle mass. At least so they can't beat a guard seriously enough to cause permanent injury. I also think that any exercise should be doing something productive, and that they should be kept far enough from inhabited areas so that escape would be suicide. We also might have a better shot at rehabilitation if we were to remove all contact with the outside world, because visitors bring in contraband that builds a hierarchy amongst the inmates. That being said, there are a lot of people that are in prison that really shouldn't be, but there are also people in prison with a release date that really shouldn't get one. I'm trying to post a thread about reform of the penal code, but I've really had too much crap around the house I have to take care of. It seems like it would be lively, though.

 

[Dittohead not!]

We need two systems, an honor system and a regular system.

In both systems, the inmates would live in tents surrounded by razor wire and machine gun nests. They would be shot if they tried to escape, and subject to non lethal weapons to break up fights. Other than that, they would cook their own meals, wash their own clothes, and take care of their own tents.

Their prison term would be for so much hard labor rather than so many years. Dig so many miles of ditch, move so many cubic yards of gravel using a shovel and wheelbarrow, whatever. Perhaps California could get its levies rebuilt on the cheap that way.

Oh, the difference: The honor prisoners, the ones who never fought, tried to escape, or did any such foolish thing as that would spend their summers in Northern Michigan or perhaps North Dakota, and their winters in Phoenix or southern California (or someplace similar). The regular prisoners would change places with them.

 

[specklebang]

I'm an advocate of corporal punishment, particularly for first offenders, for almost any crime that does not result in injury to another person.

Singapore got it right. Misbehave there and you get caned. The pain is excruciating and the scar is for life. Prisons are highly disciplined, there is no socializing.

I don't know why the Panopticon prison concept was never embraced. Would save a fortune, keep the guards from selling drugs to prisoners (the easiest place to buy drugs are in the prisons, go figure) and simply prohibit any interaction between prisoners.

Drugs, as I've argued elsewhere, need to be legalized and sold only in special stores where rehabilitation is offered and encouraged with every purchase.

Murderers should never be set free. They took a life, they must forfeit their own without the risks inherent in capital punishment.

Rapists should forfeit their genitalia. Kidnappers should forfeit body parts. Probably their eyes.

PANOPTICON

 

[Running_Riot]

In both systems, the inmates would live in tents surrounded by razor wire and machine gun nests. They would be shot if they tried to escape, and subject to non lethal weapons to break up fights. Other than that, they would cook their own meals, wash their own clothes, and take care of their own tents.

Their prison term would be for so much hard labor rather than so many years. Dig so many miles of ditch, move so many cubic yards of gravel using a shovel and wheelbarrow, whatever. Perhaps California could get its levies rebuilt on the cheap that way.

Oh, the difference: The honor prisoners, the ones who never fought, tried to escape, or did any such foolish thing as that would spend their summers in Northern Michigan or perhaps North Dakota, and their winters in Phoenix or southern California (or someplace similar). The regular prisoners would change places with them.

That's a pretty good idea. Although I would force the "honorable" offenders to march between prisons. It's punishment, not vacation.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Many of the guards at Abu Ghraib were National Guardsmen whose actual jobs were as prison guards back home. The fact they saw nothing wrong with the treatment meted out speaks volumes.

 

[sookster]

Obviously it would make sense to reform things. However, considering that certain prisons' shares are traded on the stock market, there is an incentive to keep prisoners locked up for as long as possible. To the point, that when they are released, they are more than likely to return to the prison system.

It's about money. There is more money incarcerating more people as opposed to as few as possible.

And if we were really serious about a "war on crime", all one would have to do is put money into getting rid of poverty. There is an unmistakeably strong correlation between poverty and crime.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Obviously it would make sense to reform things. However, considering that certain prisons' shares are traded on the stock market, there is an incentive to keep prisoners locked up for as long as possible. To the point, that when they are released, they are more than likely to return to the prison system.

It's about money. There is more money incarcerating more people as opposed to as few as possible.

And if we were really serious about a "war on crime", all one would have to do is put money into getting rid of poverty. There is an unmistakeably strong correlation between poverty and crime.

We've had a war on poverty going for nearly fifty years now. You'd think it would be about won by now, wouldn't you?

 

[sookster]

Well yeah. So has any possible approach to the problem been executed? I highly doubt it.

For an example....

There was a study that I read that basically had an hypothesis that wooded up windows and completely abandoned buildings in a certain area actually had an impact on overall crime. First was to quantify the baseline crime rate. Once that was done, the buildings were "renovated" by just replacing cracked up windows and boarded windows. Then when the crime rate was recalculated, the crime decreased. Many trials were performed.

Now let's move onto another seemingly separate issues but do share an influence.

The accepted school of thought is that bad neighborhoods breeds bad schools. But, recent ideas on education reform basically state that it is poor schools that breed poor neighborhoods. And it makes sense. I am raised in the inner city, and I automatically know I got the bad end of the stick. Then when I go to school, I work hard, and I do not have the confidence that my school district will allow me a good future at a four year institution. I get to middle school. I am doing the best I can do, and my grades are falling slightly. At the end of eighth grade, I have a C average. It is at this point, that many children look for their future by other means. They may drop out as soon as they can, or they go through school understanding they are not going to college. Thus, more and more people are out on the streets, trying to make ends meet. If doing crime is a way to possibly get out, then so be it.

And so many kids eventually end up in a jail/prison of some sort. And, considering it takes about 33,000 dollars a year to keep one person in prison for one year, it would make more sense to spend those tax dollars on the school district. If you were to give these kids 132k from the beginning of their first semester in kindergarten (cost of 4 years of one person in prison), that child could be sent through a private district and have some money for college.

So what's my point?

It is in my belief, that if we tackle poor schools crime would decrease, by not just increasing material standards of living, but enriching their minds, and giving them hope for the future. I agree, that the current methods do not work. But we shouldn't give up on that ideal! Learn from it, and try to make things better.

Another part of the problem, is that more and more money are going to the rich, because they can participate in financial instruments that make even more money. So the money supply is shifting to the more wealthy so to speak.
Therefore, there is less money for everyone else.

And in our culture, there is nothing wrong with that. We all love money, so whomever "earned" their fortunes are entitled to maximize even more to their hearts content. Regardless of what is going on around them.

And this is where the true debate comes in.....

Why should my money be spent on helping communities rid of crime? That's their problem, even though there could be answers that would save money for the country in the future.

Part of the problem with this country is that everyone thinks so individualistic. No wonder politics get heated! I want this no I want this. We don't live in a nation anymore that respects one another. We are all trying to make the most money because we are conditioned to love it. And what is sad, is a lot of these people go to Church every Sunday.

If we really wanted to, we could get rid of poverty. The problem is, we don't want to. Less money for me.

 

[Running_Riot]

The problem is knowing what crimes are the result of poverty, and which ones are because people don't care about the laws of this country.

 

[sookster]

People that do crime do not care about the laws of this country, simply because they got handed such a bad hand in our society.

 

[wolfman24]

Hello

I like this idea to a degree perhaps a melding of what I said and your ideas would be "workable"

What do you think.

Wolfman24

 

[Dittohead not!]

People that do crime do not care about the laws of this country, simply because they got handed such a bad hand in our society.

Is that why Bernie Madoff stole fifty billion dollars, because he was handed a bad hand?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Here's another problem that needs to be addressed:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us