Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The goal of prison should be to rehabilitate people and make them better. Is that not better for everyone? Prisoner's should work, sure, but they should be trained so they can reenter society. By doing this, we can help reduce crime rates as people will be less likely to re-offend. This saves the tax payers money who have to pay for people's incarcerations. It does however cause corporate owned prisons to make less money, which is why the prison system clearly isn't working....
I have to say that I disagree that the "goal of prison is to rehabilitate". Usually by the time people actually get to prison they have had plenty of opportunities to "do the right thing" and improve their behavior, but, for whatever reason, they have not been motivated to change.
IMHO the goal of prison is to punish. Make it miserable. Make people FEAR the idea of being locked away for a few years.
Three meals. Cell with NO creature comforts. Work all day. Proceeds go to provide for your care. Make sure that people know that a stint in jail is likely to be unhealthy and shorten their life span significantly.
Prison ought to be a deterrent. Warm cells, soft beds, television, educational programs, athletic facilities and anything other than minimal health care are NOT part of my idea of a prison regime.
Make it hard. If that includes forced labor, I have no problem with that. Otherwise very capable men and women sit around rotting even more quickly.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 01-20-2015 at 02:24 PM..
Reason: Removed colored font
Economic studies on the recidivism rate showed that it is dramatically higher for convicts that return to the area in which they were convicted. The convicts that leave the prison system and move far away from the "familiar habitats" that facilitated their criminal lifestyle have a dramatically higher chance of becoming productive members of society.
Part of it is the lack of education and job training, part is that they are tempted to rejoin a group of criminals that are living outside of the prison.
That is a lot of generalities. Many people convicted of serious crimes have high intelligence quotients, they try to beat the system. You don't need to train people like that, they need to understand and realize the effects of punishment. Rapists don't need job training, many have jobs. If you want to remove the criminal from their location, fine, send them to prison.
Why have make-work when you can have them do real work? Real work like digging their own wells, building their own housing, growing their own food?
I think the best approach from both a rehabilitation and taxpayer savings standpoint is simply to put them behind a heavily guarded fence and tell them they're on their own.
If they want to eat, drink or have shelter, they have to provide for themselves. They also have to govern themselves -- no guards inside the prison or camp.
If they want to go all "Lord of the Flies" on each other, that's their loss. I trust that they would quickly realize WHY society has rules and restraints and they would learn to police their own and other's behavior.
They might even turn some of their work product into a profitable enterprise. If they did, then they could purchase such luxuries as TVs.
Think of it as being forced to start your own business and system of self-governance in the company of "friends." When they finally got out, they would be a lot more prepared to live in society than prisoners are today. They would even be better prepared than a lot of non-prisoners.
Of course, the lawyers and activist groups would go crazy if we ever did anything like this...
The core foundation of the idea isn't bad, but the complete lack of supervision is a pretty high risk factor. I'm a forgiving person and an idealist, and I have no doubt that many people who are just on their way to prison don't intend on committing a crime again (plenty eventually do of course for a variety of reasons I need not go into at the moment). But plenty of people going to prison are still potentially dangerous. The drug addict or petty thief could probably have a prison system like the one you described and the results would be ideal, but the mob boss or drug manufacturer would probably use that as an opportunity to maintain power in some fashion. Basically, the best case scenario is the criminals create a functioning society within their walls in which everyone contributes, or a ruthless dictatorship that will make matters worse.
But the idea of getting criminals to grow their own food and fend for themselves to some extent would make rehabilitation easier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
Soylent Green.
Organ donation.
Medical experimentation.
There are many ways that murderers and gangbangers can "give back".
Just keep them locked up. Compassion and trust don't work with subhuman savages and con artists and sociopathic predators.
Not every criminal is a subhuman savages. Even the crimes that are objectively worse are more likely to be committed by someone who was living in a state of desperation or despair. This doesn't excuse what those people did, and they have to answer for their crimes, but to assume there's no good in them is unfair. If given the chance to live a relatively decent life, those people would not commit a crime. This is why rehabilitation is so important.
Are some people just truly naturally dangerous? Yeah. Serial killers should probably be locked up for life, or executed (though I personally don't think a state should have a right to determine someone's right to life). But a lot of criminals can be fixed; the justice system needs to take circumstance into account. The rapist who raped someone while widely intoxicated should not be viewed with the same negativity as the rapist who was sober while committing his crime, yet few would ever even attempt to view the two as different despite the fact that one had clouded judgment and probably never would have committed the crime sober (again, this doesn't excuse the crime, but it should be factored in when determining the punishment).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan
Hard labor would be better exercise and more productive that weight lifting and basketball, which is what most prisoners do now.
Rehabilitation is a feel-good non-solution. The only thing that will make criminals change their ways is time. A lot of it.
So... having to serve their time would rehabilitate them. Rehabilitation doesn't have to mean comfortable therapy and group meetings. If hard labor is what will change someone, then hard labor should be used as that's what will rehabilitate them. Rehabilitation is simply getting someone to recognize their crime and train them to not commit it again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Bear
I have to say that I disagree that the "goal of prison is to rehabilitate". Usually by the time people actually get to prison they have had plenty of opportunities to "do the right thing" and improve their behavior, but, for whatever reason, they have not been motivated to change.
IMHO the goal of prison is to punish. Make it miserable. Make people FEAR the idea of being locked away for a few years.
Three meals. Cell with NO creature comforts. Work all day. Proceeds go to provide for your care. Make sure that people know that a stint in jail is likely to be unhealthy and shorten their life span significantly.
Prison ought to be a deterrent. Warm cells, soft beds, television, educational programs, athletic facilities and anything other than minimal health care are NOT part of my idea of a prison regime.
Make it hard. If that includes forced labor, I have no problem with that. Otherwise very capable men and women sit around rotting even more quickly.
Not all criminals need to be punished as severely though. The murderer and the drug dealer should be treated very differently. Both committed a crime, but one is objectively worse than the other by a significant margin. Or better example, the drug user. The murderer put society at risk, the drug user put himself at risk. Ignoring the fact that I think drug use should be completely decriminalized, treating both these people as the same is unreasonable.
I'm not saying we should base our prison system off of Finland's prisons (which have pretty good results actually, but the culture and way of thinking is much different then America's). Prison shouldn't be a comfortable experience, and it's not. Even the minimum security prisons, which have the recreational services and such, are still awful places to actually be. While it's preferable to maximum security prisons, where you can an hour a day (as most) to go outside and spend the rest in a cell, not sane person should ever want to be there.
Prison, in my opinion, should have three primary goals. To rehabilitate, punish, and deter. It should be unpleasant enough so people on the outside won't underestimate it, hard enough so that getting through prison feels like a punishment, and still be a place where opportunities to improve are readily available so those who will be released can be prepared for the real world and have something to show for their time in prison.
I have to say that I disagree that the "goal of prison is to rehabilitate". Usually by the time people actually get to prison they have had plenty of opportunities to "do the right thing" and improve their behavior, but, for whatever reason, they have not been motivated to change.
IMHO the goal of prison is to punish. Make it miserable. Make people FEAR the idea of being locked away for a few years.
Three meals. Cell with NO creature comforts. Work all day. Proceeds go to provide for your care. Make sure that people know that a stint in jail is likely to be unhealthy and shorten their life span significantly.
Prison ought to be a deterrent. Warm cells, soft beds, television, educational programs, athletic facilities and anything other than minimal health care are NOT part of my idea of a prison regime.
Make it hard. If that includes forced labor, I have no problem with that. Otherwise very capable men and women sit around rotting even more quickly.
It isn't about what your opinion of what corrections SHOULD be. The goals of corrections are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.
Retribution is, of course, punishment, but there are other goals as well. And yes, one of them is rehabilitation.
Individuals who have looked at countless cases and statistics have come up with these goals. I'm sorry, but they know a little more about what our system needs than someone who simply has a vendetta against criminals that he/she does not know.
There are certainly a lot of disgusting criminals in our society who deserve exactly what you're talking about. All criminals do not deserve that, though. Many people are incarcerated for possessing or selling small amounts of drugs for personal consumption. Others are incarcerated for things that they did while struggling with a drug addiction, such as stealing. Many of them aren't hopeless -- if they are rehabilitated, get clean and learn how to work and live without drugs, then many of them can be good, contributing members to society. I'm pretty sure we've all made mistakes...maybe not the same types of mistakes, but (a lot of) people deserve a second chance. Baby rapers and murderers, maybe not, but someone who stole something or bought a baggie of drugs while under the influence does deserve another chance.
Prison, that one word and one type of facility to address the huge stratification of crimes. I think most intelligent people already know that America has put a lot of money and work into the penal system that we have come to know as a less than perfect system. Every so often a poster will jump in to announce their latest epiphany with regard to how our prisons should be administered, and the resulting posts will either be in agreement or not. But I've noted a vast difference in the tone of the posts when the notion of a harsher life inside the walls is bandied about as a way to satisfy the anger felt by so many.
The OP is simply putting forth an old idea that at one time actually provided the base philosophy of penal life in general. Hard work being a euphemism for a type of torture, something that brings pain and severe discomfort as a daily reality. The French and British, those masters of penal colony delights that served neither nation all that well proposed a harsh life as the just deserts of those who went astray. We haven't come far from those days when reading the thoughts of those who openly advocate for a far more stringent level of discomfort in today's prisons.
The real challenge is for us to look at the criminal as an individual, and in that view we would see the need for a focus on individual traits as a way to segregate criminals along lines of behavioral training aptitude as opposed to the present day industrial approach to incarceration. Exercise is a must for the human mind and body to function, laying around in cells is the biggest problem we see in the system today. Agriculture and human labor have had a long and prosperous history, so it makes sense to have large self sustaining farms as the base of our penal system. Farm work has a certain nobility to it, it is certainly not demeaning, it is demanding work but also rewarding work.
When you see this farm model being utilized and those behemoth warehouses of human suffering being torn down you'll know that America has turned a corner, yes, some will need to remain on the farms for the remainder of their lives, that's just how humans roll sometimes, some offer us little in the way of hope for a true rehabilitation, others not so much, and still more that need just a small hand up. Knowing who's who in that lineup will dispel a lot of the mysteries of what constitutes the best practice for prisons. Or, we can go back to the days of Devils Island where the guards and administrators who were supposed to be the good guys became equal if not worse monsters while torturing the bad guys in the name of all that is good.
The goal of prison should not be to rehabilitate, because that's been tried forever and is clearly a failure in most cases. The goal should be to keep criminals away from potential victims and to motivate other people not to become criminals. If they can be rehabilitated successfully, it should be done out of prison, and they should never go to prison in the first place.
Therefore, prison should never be used at all unless the crime is severe enough to justify a life sentence without possiblity of parole. In other words, once they're in, they never get out. That way it won't matter that prison is crime university.
The advantage of chain gangs is that they're a visible reminder to would-be criminals of what they're asking for by becoming criminals. It should be dramatically hard and unpleasant labor, to motivate all spectators to not end up there. In other words, once it has been determined that a particular criminal is not likely to be successfully rehabilitated, the only future for that criminal should be a life on an unpleasant chain gang, and in prison, with no possiblity of ever getting out, except by proving innocence.
But how likely is this to ever happen? We're more civilized than that. We would rather have streets full of violent crime than to establish a system so draconian and uncivilzed. Who cares about the victims as long as we refrain from mistreating the criminals?
The goal of prison should not be to rehabilitate, because that's been tried forever and is clearly a failure in most cases. The goal should be to keep criminals away from potential victims and to motivate other people not to become criminals. If they can be rehabilitated successfully, it should be done out of prison, and they should never go to prison in the first place.
Therefore, prison should never be used at all unless the crime is severe enough to justify a life sentence without possiblity of parole. In other words, once they're in, they never get out. That way it won't matter that prison is crime university.
The advantage of chain gangs is that they're a visible reminder to would-be criminals of what they're asking for by becoming criminals. It should be dramatically hard and unpleasant labor, to motivate all spectators to not end up there. In other words, once it has been determined that a particular criminal is not likely to be successfully rehabilitated, the only future for that criminal should be a life on an unpleasant chain gang, and in prison, with no possiblity of ever getting out, except by proving innocence.
But how likely is this to ever happen? We're more civilized than that. We would rather have streets full of violent crime than to establish a system so draconian and uncivilzed. Who cares about the victims as long as we refrain from mistreating the criminals?
All good points. My only interest is in removing them from the streets, so that innocent people may go about their lives. If there's some rehab or education that can be provided without breaking the bank, so be it. But cleaning up the streets and making it safe for ourselves and our children is the important thing.
Back in the 1970s, it was all about rehabbing the criminal, getting inside the criminal's mind, making up excuses for why they commit crimes etc. The victims were all but forgotten by liberal judges and social activists who were eager to "cure" the nation's disease of crime. They failed miserably. What finally worked was locking the crooks up and throwing away the key.
I say, if prisons are over crowded, build more prisons. We don't need chain gangs. We don't need rehabilitation. We just need them off the streets so that we can live peaceful lives unthreatened by brutal savages out to rob, rape, and kill innocent people.
All good points. My only interest is in removing them from the streets, so that innocent people may go about their lives. If there's some rehab or education that can be provided without breaking the bank, so be it. But cleaning up the streets and making it safe for ourselves and our children is the important thing.
Back in the 1970s, it was all about rehabbing the criminal, getting inside the criminal's mind, making up excuses for why they commit crimes etc. The victims were all but forgotten by liberal judges and social activists who were eager to "cure" the nation's disease of crime. They failed miserably. What finally worked was locking the crooks up and throwing away the key.
I say, if prisons are over crowded, build more prisons. We don't need chain gangs. We don't need rehabilitation. We just need them off the streets so that we can live peaceful lives unthreatened by brutal savages out to rob, rape, and kill innocent people.
That's a bizarre thing to say after commenting about 'breaking the bank' when it comes to rehabilitation. Building more prisons and paying the guards and administration is going to cost more money.
I say if prisons are overcrowded, we need to evaluate why they are overcrowded. Of course, many have done this already. Most people in prison were incarcerated for non-violent crimes, like possession of drugs. If we want to be cost effective (for the tax payer), we stop sending those people to prison. Suddenly, we have a huge improvement to the system. Prison should be reserved ONLY for people who pose an active threat to those around them. So, as you said, thieves, rapists, and murders; each sentence being progressively longer, depending on the circumstance of their crime. That's to say, someone who killed someone in cold blood should get a longer sentence than a rapist or someone who killed someone while driving drunk. Prison time should be directly related to the circumstance and cause for the crime, which as of now, is not how the justice system works. But as far as I'm concerned, if someone has committed a crime that hurts no one, like drug dealing, jail time is excessive and unnecessary. Other actions should be taken. This is more cost effective overall.
That's a bizarre thing to say after commenting about 'breaking the bank' when it comes to rehabilitation. Building more prisons and paying the guards and administration is going to cost more money.
I say if prisons are overcrowded, we need to evaluate why they are overcrowded. Of course, many have done this already. Most people in prison were incarcerated for non-violent crimes, like possession of drugs. If we want to be cost effective (for the tax payer), we stop sending those people to prison. Suddenly, we have a huge improvement to the system. Prison should be reserved ONLY for people who pose an active threat to those around them. So, as you said, thieves, rapists, and murders; each sentence being progressively longer, depending on the circumstance of their crime. That's to say, someone who killed someone in cold blood should get a longer sentence than a rapist or someone who killed someone while driving drunk. Prison time should be directly related to the circumstance and cause for the crime, which as of now, is not how the justice system works. But as far as I'm concerned, if someone has committed a crime that hurts no one, like drug dealing, jail time is excessive and unnecessary. Other actions should be taken. This is more cost effective overall.
I agree.
We have jail and prison overcrowding, yet we have police putting together sting operations to bust people for buying or selling a $20 baggie.
Those who are using drugs for personal use aren't hurting anyone but themselves (and their families and people who care about them, of course) until they begin breaking other laws. Many don't. Many work hard all week just to support their habits. I've met plenty of people who were that way, whether they wanted to admit it or not, and it's really not any different than someone who blows all of his (or her) money on booze and cigarettes.
Plus, let's remember that most of the "drug dealers" who are in prison are not like the violent drug dealers that we see on TV. They deal a little bit among their friends and people in the community -- who would be using drugs anyway. Then, they land a long prison sentence for it. Let's also remember that there are only a few different factors between a misdemeanor charge and slap on the wrist and a serious felony with hard time -- like, for example, two people who have the same amount of marijuana, but one has it in separate baggies and has a set of scales. The first person gets possession, and the second gets possession, possession with intent to sell and deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia and maintaining a vehicle or dwelling for drug manufacturing purposes (think that means a meth lab? NOT necessarily.)
I dabbled with certain things when I was younger but have been 100 percent drug-free for quite a long time now. Still, do I think an 18-year-old who is selling dope to a few of his buddies should go to prison for years? No, I don't.
Yet, OP thinks that all prisoners should be put through hard labor. Maybe court-mandated rehab or even house arrest, but not hard labor.
Drug dealers don't hurt anyone? Would that include the children who get hooked on drugs and then die as a result of the drugs sold or often given to them by dealers. What, now we're going to blame the children for making the bad choice instead of the adult dealer who persuades or coerces the child into using drugs? Where does that kind of thinking come from? All crimes harm society and if you follow the chain of consequences, those so called non-violent crimes often have violence somewhere in that chain of events. Yes, hard labor for drug dealers too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
