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.
If a lot more criminals get life sentences, society could get the following advantages:
1. Those criminals being off the streets makes the streets safer.
2. The prison industry earns more money and thereby improves the economy.
3. More guards and other prison employees are hired, which improves employment and the economy.
4. Those prisoners aren't competing for jobs, so there are more jobs for everyone else.
5. Those prisoners aren't driving, so the highways are less congested.
6. Those prisoners aren't starting families, so there will be less overpopulation in the future.
7. If prisons are "crime universities" those educations will be wasted by being locked up for life, which is good news, because we don't want criminals to use advanced crime skills.
8. Those prisoners don't qualify for the same government benefits as other people do, so those benefits are less likely to be depleted.
And those are just the advantages that occur to me in a few minutes. There are doubtless countless more.
There is an implication, that if 30% of the population were in prison for life, we could benefit by increasing it to 40% or 50%. A good place to draw the line might be at whatever kind of crime makes us not want those criminals in our neighborhoods.
This is for reasonable arguments for and against this point of view. The only reasonable argument I can think of, off hand, against this point of view, is that it might be unfair to the criminals. But if the unfairness to the criminals is balanced by increased fairness to their future victims, that hardly seems like a good argument to me. Or is it?
The punishment need not end with life in prison. The prisoners could get different treatment in prison depending on the severity of their crimes. Those who commited the worst crimes could be required to do the worst work in prison. Or any such scheme to give them motivation to reduce their crimes. But in any case the goal of life in prison would be to keep criminals off the streets, out of society, not just to punish them. Keeping them off the streets would probably be a more important goal than punishing them. Both are needed, but keeping them off the streets might be what makes the most difference to the quality of life of society in general.
As a nation we already have a RIDICULOUSLY HIGH incarceration rate, largely due to our government's obsession with the (failed) War on Drugs, and other victimless crimes. We'd be much better off simply handling non-violent prisoners in other ways, and by EXECUTING the worst violent criminals (which is only more expensive than life imprisonment because we have SET IT UP that way).
Most importantly, it does NOT "add to the economy" to give even more tax money to our oversized prison system--this is an "overhead" expense to an economy, and by definition takes money out of the productive economy. It is like having a failing business and massively expanding the Accounting Department, instead of investing in R&D or new manufacturing equipment or even advertising.
IF the prison is not privatized (which also has problems), the LAST thing we need is more government employees, who have become a new "upper class" that get paid far more than private sector employees, get far better benefits, and work far less hours overall for their compensation. The money for either private or public citizens must be confiscated from the productive working class--and that group is BEYOND overtaxed already. To have an economic recovery, we'd have to significantly reduce, or get the tax burden off the working class entirely.
Finally, putting people in prison does not necessarily STOP THEM FROM BREEDING. Consider Manson Family mass murderer Tex Watson: "In 1979, he married Kristin Joan Svege. Through conjugal visits they were able to have four children (three boys, one girl)." Tex Watson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Six states currently allow conjugal visits (California, Connecticut, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York and Washington), and there's no telling when the liberals will again quietly expand this "right" as part of their philosophy of rewarding bad behavior.
If a lot more criminals get life sentences, society could get the following advantages:
1. Those criminals being off the streets makes the streets safer.
2. The prison industry earns more money and thereby improves the economy.
3. More guards and other prison employees are hired, which improves employment and the economy.
4. Those prisoners aren't competing for jobs, so there are more jobs for everyone else.
5. Those prisoners aren't driving, so the highways are less congested.
6. Those prisoners aren't starting families, so there will be less overpopulation in the future.
7. If prisons are "crime universities" those educations will be wasted by being locked up for life, which is good news, because we don't want criminals to use advanced crime skills.
8. Those prisoners don't qualify for the same government benefits as other people do, so those benefits are less likely to be depleted.
And those are just the advantages that occur to me in a few minutes. There are doubtless countless more.
There is an implication, that if 30% of the population were in prison for life, we could benefit by increasing it to 40% or 50%. A good place to draw the line might be at whatever kind of crime makes us not want those criminals in our neighborhoods.
This is for reasonable arguments for and against this point of view. The only reasonable argument I can think of, off hand, against this point of view, is that it might be unfair to the criminals. But if the unfairness to the criminals is balanced by increased fairness to their future victims, that hardly seems like a good argument to me. Or is it?
1) There'll always be more right behind them. You're getting rid of recidivism, of course, 5 year recidivism runs about 75%. But, that number has a buttload of caveats to it.. Burglary convictions, I think it's upwards of 80% are re-arrested for something within 5 years. But, age plays a big part, too. Someone who is arrested at 21 has a far higher recidivism rate than someone arrested at 50. Various reasons for that as well. The fault here is "only criminals commit crimes".. Chicken or egg? A first time offender wasn't a criminal before they committed their first crime. Sex Offender registries are a good example of this... they're useless, IMO.. Most of the crimes that land someone on a SOR are not committed by people who are ON a SOR. The only real thing they accomplish is giving someone a false sense of security. While you're busy focusing on someone who is on the SOR, the person who isn't on it is the one committing a sex offense.
2) Prison earns no money. There is no state where prisons turn a profit. They might for some private prison companies.. But, that's the company making money. The state, and therefore you, are paying for them to make that profit..
3) You could flip that and say that it means there aren't enough people to fill other jobs.
4) See #3
5) Which means less cars sold.. Which means fewer automotive jobs.. Fewer road crews needed. Depends how all this shakes out with #3 and #4. Possibility it could work.
6) Fault there is assuming that criminals become criminals before starting families. Now, you've taken a breadwinner from a family.. Let's just say 25 year old male, DUI with bodily injury.. Has 3 kids and a wife. Not only are you supporting him, but supporting them as well.
7) Depends on the crime. The guy mentioned above.. Not sure how you learn to DUI better in prison.
8) They qualify for more. Prisoners are guaranteed food, medical care and shelter. I, on the other hand, have no such guarantee.
Of course.. There are other items here.. We could say since you're locking up most everyone, that you're increasing the number of kids raised in single parent homes.. Which perhaps leads to a higher incarceration rate. Then.. You're locking these people up for life.. Once they hit their 70's.. Medical care costs go through the roof.. You are footing the bill for that.
Basically, your idea is akin to low cost airlines. Yeah, you got this great ticket, far cheaper than any of the legacy carriers.. But you'll just be moaning and whining when you find out that you have to pay for your bags to fly, a bottle of water, the air that you breathe.. Have to break out your credit card to fuel up the airplane.. Added fee for not crashing into a mountain. Nickled and dimed to death.
The best example I can come up with is using disenfranchised voters in Florida.. Florida removes the right to vote on felony conviction, so that gives us some real numbers to work with here..
Florida has 1.5 million disenfranchised voters.. So, that's roughly the number of people who would be in prison under your plan. That's 10.5 percent of the population. Numbers are varying.. But $30k is about what it takes to lock up a prisoner for a year (More for higher security, less for lower).. Make it $35k considering the aging population you have to care for, since these are all life sentences.. So.. That's $52.5 billion.. Seriously? is that right? Yep.. $52.5 billions dollars for Florida to pay out.. On a population of 14.7 million. Minus out the 1.5 million in prison, that leaves you with 13.2 million taxpayers to cover that 52.5 billion.. That comes out to a state tax bill of just shy of $4000 per person, per year. And there's a buttload of assumptions there. We could take out the 6% unemployment in Florida.. That cuts the 13.2 million sharing it down to about 12.4 million.. Now that's about $4250 per year.. Just for the prisons. You still haven't paid anything for schools, EMS, all that other stuff your taxes pay for. And that's JUST the state tax.. Haven't even paid the feds yet.. And, hey.. Feds have prisons, too..
The US has one of, if not the highest percentage of its population in prison. We should be looking at ways to reduce the prison population. Whether it be through alternative sentencing for "low-end" crimes, such as drug possession or whatever else you can come up with. Keep prison for the people who need to be there. While it makes us feel better, is having Bernie Madoff locked up doing us any good? Sentence his butt to 30 years of volunteering 7 days a week, 8 hours a day building homes for Habitat for Humanity or something along those lines. He's a deterrent? Bull. If I could live like a king for 75 years, and would be locked up after that.. I might take that deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
Finally, putting people in prison does not necessarily STOP THEM FROM BREEDING. Consider Manson Family mass murderer Tex Watson: "In 1979, he married Kristin Joan Svege. Through conjugal visits they were able to have four children (three boys, one girl)." Tex Watson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Six states currently allow conjugal visits (California, Connecticut, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York and Washington), and there's no telling when the liberals will again quietly expand this "right" as part of their philosophy of rewarding bad behavior.
The fault in that logic is that you're assuming, incorrectly, that conjugal visits are increasing in popularity. They're not. Your information is out of date.. New Mexico and Mississippi banned conjugal visits last year.. It's down to 4 states that allow them now.
Not that I agree with the practice of allowing them. But suggesting, as you did, that there is any indication of conjugal visits being a growing trend is totally false.
You do realize that the prison population does compete for jobs with the regular population, right? Surely you have heard of prison industries? Also, keeping a person incarcerated costs more than most jobs pay? That is a lot of money for them to sit around and not be productive members of society.
However, the US Army does have a plan for the incarceration, and forced labor of the American population, maybe you should read up on it armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r210_35.pdf.
It specifies using inmates from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, but that could be changed, and anyway, federal law is so complex and complicated that most people break some federal law or regulation at some point.
It might be what you are looking for.
Last edited by 1986matthew; 01-31-2015 at 11:59 PM..
If a lot more criminals get life sentences, society could get the following advantages:
1. Those criminals being off the streets makes the streets safer.
2. The prison industry earns more money and thereby improves the economy.
3. More guards and other prison employees are hired, which improves employment and the economy.
4. Those prisoners aren't competing for jobs, so there are more jobs for everyone else.
5. Those prisoners aren't driving, so the highways are less congested.
6. Those prisoners aren't starting families, so there will be less overpopulation in the future.
7. If prisons are "crime universities" those educations will be wasted by being locked up for life, which is good news, because we don't want criminals to use advanced crime skills.
8. Those prisoners don't qualify for the same government benefits as other people do, so those benefits are less likely to be depleted.
And those are just the advantages that occur to me in a few minutes. There are doubtless countless more.
I'll let you pay for it. We are already stupidly addicted to prisons and incarceration. It costs well over $60,000 per each bed to build a prison and that isn't the high security beds that you need for life without parole inmates. Add to that the cost of custody year after year...food, clothing, medical, etc. Inmates in prison live a long time because they are isolated from disease and accidents. Next add the personnel costs -- you need 5 people to cover a single post 24/7 and even with the dismally low salaries paid to correctional officer staff that will probably be your highest expense...if you can find folks to do the job -- and you won't. Oh...and don't forget to add benefits and retirement. You will need a huge legal staff to defend against inmate lawsuits and a large medical staff for aged and infirm inmates...and specialized medical facilities. That's just the start...not counting the economic and social costs for single parent families and a distorted and government dominated economy where the hundreds of new prisons will be located. The glow in the night sky will be from your local prison.
No. The only criminals who should be sentence to life are the various shades of murderers. They have taken another's life so their own is forfeit. That is justice.
Possibly, it makes sense for chronic felons, those who have demonstrated that society is threatened by their presence.
A life sentence should be just that: prison for life, no release for any reason. That would be unjust.
You do realize that the prison population does compete for jobs with the regular population, right? Surely you have heard of prison industries? Also, keeping a person incarcerated costs more than most jobs pay? That is a lot of money for them to sit around and not be productive members of society.
Reminds me of something someone brought up in another topic regarding prisons.. Once you start making putting people in prison profitable.. You create a reason/need to put people in prison regardless of guilt or innocence.
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.
