NationStates Jolt Archive

How do you feel about Prison Labor? Should more prisons enact hard labor and factory programs for inmates? Would this make it a way for prisoners to work off their debt to society? As long as human rights are not being violated, do you think inmates should be forced to work? What about mandatory drug rehabilitation and community blood drives from inmates?

Incarcerating prisoners is expensive. Someone needs to pay for it.

Why not the prisoners?

Prison labor is a great idea. It keeps them working and might prevent them from falling too far into the prison culture of drug trafficking and violence, pays for some of their sentence, and may even teach them useful skills for life on the “outside.”

It will make prisoners more unhappy leading to more riots and violence which in turn means more money spent on security and thus destroys the profit

Bah, we're giving 'em tens of thousands a year to keep 'em in the best of situations, may as well make 'em work for the money.

Chorus

She works hard for the money
So hard for it honey
She works hard for the money
And you better treat her right

Sorta random, and not exactly what I had in mind, but meh.

It will make prisoners more unhappy leading to more riots and violence which in turn means more money spent on security and thus destroys the profit

Um, WHAT??? Are you serious? Since when is prison supposed to be a "happy" place? :rolleyes:

It will make prisoners more unhappy leading to more riots and violence which in turn means more money spent on security and thus destroys the profit
Im not so sure ... of course it depends on the labor and location. But like with tv viewing time maybe something to occupy their time will have the effect of lowering riots

I know it was relitivly sucessfull up here when they had the prisioners farm their own food

Um, WHAT??? Are you serious? Since when is prison supposed to be a "happy" place? :rolleyes:
I think his point was that unhappy people cause more violence and cost more to incarserate

Prison Labour is a great idea. The prisoner can learn new skills and do something productive with their time, rather than just hanging around not doing much in the prison. Prison labour is a great rehabilitation tool.

I mean actual work that will produce something of worth for society. If an inmate does well then they can be rewarded and so forth. The inmate gets to learn new skills and a sense of worth, the Prison gets to recoup some of its costs and the public get cheap products and hopefully criminals who are less likely to reoffend.

Um, WHAT??? Are you serious? Since when is prison supposed to be a "happy" place? :rolleyes:

I thought prisoners were meant to rehabilitated or do we live back in the 1800?

Im not so sure ... of course it depends on the labor and location. But like with tv viewing time maybe something to occupy their time will have the effect of lowering riots

but shouldn’t there time be occupied with rehabilitation and such?

I thought prisoners were meant to rehabilitated or do we live back in the 1800?

I love the way some people throw "rehabilitation" around as some cure all. It all depends on the inmante and the rehabilitation needed. What better from of rehabilitation thatn putting idle hands to WORK, earn their way back into society, and learn a valuable skill?

Rehabilitaion only works for those who want it. Some people do not benefit from it at all (serial murderers, terrorists, pedophiles).

I thought prisoners were meant to rehabilitated or do we live back in the 1800?

Prisons are meant to be unpleasant. The more unpleasant they are, the less likely an offender with go back.

Just try harder.....:headbang:

but shouldn’t there time be occupied with rehabilitation and such?
Depends work deffinatly should not interfere with any rehabilitation programs they are accepted to or partaking in

But as is I hardly think sitting in a cell qualifies as rehabilitation.

Prisons are meant to be unpleasant. The more unpleasant they are, the less likely an offender with go back.

Just try harder.....:headbang:
I hear this sort of thinking all the time

Yet none of you ever back that sort of thing up with any statistics

I love the way some people throw "rehabilitation" around as some cure all. It all depends on the inmante and the rehabilitation needed. What better from of rehabilitation thatn putting idle hands to WORK, earn their way back into society, and learn a valuable skill?

Rehabilitaion only works for those who want it. Some people do not benefit from it at all (serial murderers, terrorists, pedophiles).

you underestimate the power of counselling and failing that outright brainwashing also what happens if a prisoner says “screw this I won’t work as a slave” what are you going to do beat them with a whip?

Prisons are meant to be unpleasant. The more unpleasant they are, the less likely an offender with go back.

Just try harder.....:headbang:

yeah because only bad people commit crimes like those in poverty who steal bread :rolleyes:

you underestimate the power of counselling and failing that outright brainwashing also what happens if a prisoner says “screw this I won’t work as a slave” what are you going to do beat them with a whip?
Refusal to work should be viewed as simmilar to refusal of treatment.

It would effect their parole and they could not be clasified as having good behavior.

There will be some that dont ... and they can opt out but there should deffinatly be penalties to doing such.

Refusal to work should be viewed as simmilar to refusal of treatment.

It would effect their parole and they could not be clasified as having good behavior.

There will be some that dont ... and they can opt out but there should deffinatly be penalties to doing such.

so what happens when everyone doesn’t work because there pissed of with what basically amounts to slavery who will make the old rope then?

I hear this sort of thinking all the time

Yet none of you ever back that sort of thing up with any statistics

Every time I've seen a study of deterrence, it studies only prisoners. But that's a huge selection bias, because you're only studying people on whom deterrence didn't work.

I don't commit crimes because I fear punishment. Otherwise, I'd absolutely be smuggling drugs into the US - the money is great. But the US justice system frightens me, so I don't smuggle drugs.

Voila. Deterrence.

so what happens when everyone doesn’t work because there pissed of with what basically amounts to slavery who will make the old rope then?
I somehow doubt the entire prision population will choose to show that they are unworthy of early parole.

Like I said they can opt out but they should not recive any extra potential help from the state. They may choose not to work but they also choose any sort of benifit that you could gain from the system that you are not supporting.

Every time I've seen a study of deterrence, it studies only prisoners. But that's a huge selection bias, because you're only studying people on whom deterrence didn't work.

I don't commit crimes because I fear punishment. Otherwise, I'd absolutely be smuggling drugs into the US - the money is great. But the US justice system frightens me, so I don't smuggle drugs.

Voila. Deterrence.
How is that bias?

If you are trying to predict what a population will do (in this case crime recomission rates of prisioners) you have to select a sample from WITHIN THAT POPULATION

That is EXACTLY the population you should be drawing on if that is what you are trying to predict

Now if you are trying to predict detterance on the entire population of the US then you need a random sample from the entire us (not just prisioners)

But the poster I quoted was talking about re-commision rates

I somehow doubt the entire prision population will choose to show that they are unworthy of early parole.

Like I said they can opt out but they should not recive any extra potential help from the state. They may choose not to work but they also choose any sort of benifit that you could gain from the system that you are not supporting.

either that or you end up with what we have in England: http://www.nosweat.org.uk/article.php?sid=565

so what happens when everyone doesn’t work because there pissed of with what basically amounts to slavery who will make the old rope then?

Stop feeding them.

I see no reason why, in the age of automation, that prisons have to be designed such that prisoners have to interact with guards, or even other prisoners.

Every time I've seen a study of deterrence, it studies only prisoners. But that's a huge selection bias, because you're only studying people on whom deterrence didn't work.

I don't commit crimes because I fear punishment. Otherwise, I'd absolutely be smuggling drugs into the US - the money is great. But the US justice system frightens me, so I don't smuggle drugs.

Voila. Deterrence.

your telling me if you could bribe some cop to get away with it every time you would be a drug dealer?

It will make prisoners more unhappy leading to more riots and violence which in turn means more money spent on security and thus destroys the profit
Some work is bad, but in my experience, nothing is more depressing than sitting around doing nothing.

This seems like a really good idea, but there is a question. What labor would they be doing? Remember, slave labor can way undercut the prices of other businesses, especially with the outragously high minimum wages and benefits that workers hardly ever deserve but always get, and this would likely hurt the local businesses in high crime areas.

Find a good answer to that, however, and I will probably support such a thing.

As for punishment for those who refuse to work, whatever happened to "solitary confinement" in a small dark room? A day or two there will motivate most anyone.

either that or you end up with what we have in England: http://www.nosweat.org.uk/article.php?sid=565
Clear example of what not to do when implementing work programs

Like in the private sector you should have the choice to work or not.

Rather then being punished for refusal to work there should be reward for choosing to work.

If ya dont want to work ... fine sit in your cell 23 hours a day like you otherwise would.

But if you want increased privilages you have to earn them

Stop feeding them.

I see no reason why, in the age of automation, that prisons have to be designed such that prisoners have to interact with guards, or even other prisoners.
No fucking way ... all people have the right to life regardless if they can not be trusted with the rest of society.

This seems like a really good idea, but there is a question. What labor would they be doing? Remember, slave labor can way undercut the prices of other businesses, especially with the outragously high minimum wages and benefits that workers hardly ever deserve but always get, and this would likely hurt the local businesses in high crime areas.

Find a good answer to that, however, and I will probably support such a thing.

As for punishment for those who refuse to work, whatever happened to "solitary confinement" in a small dark room? A day or two there will motivate most anyone.
Then you get work riots and work protests like thoes in england

Motivation works best with the carrot ... not the stick

Stop feeding them.

I see no reason why, in the age of automation, that prisons have to be designed such that prisoners have to interact with guards, or even other prisoners.

they tried that once prisoners committed suicide so much they stopped doing it and the idea was to make them think about what they did of course you cant do that for months on end can you?

but shouldn’t there time be occupied with rehabilitation and such?
Labour can be a form of rehabilitation. (Though if you're making them work 16 hour days I would not agree.)

Clear example of what not to do when implementing work programs

Like in the private sector you should have the choice to work or not.

Rather then being punished for refusal to work there should be reward for choosing to work.

If ya dont want to work ... fine sit in your cell 23 hours a day like you otherwise would.

But if you want increased privilages you have to earn them

what if there’s is a sudden surge of unemployment wouldn't people just commit crimes so they can get free accommodation and money for there family?

what if there’s is a sudden surge of unemployment wouldn't people just commit crimes so they can get free accommodation and money for there family?
I did not say they would get any hard cash for it

There are plenty of reward/benifit systems that can be setup that would not translate to an overall economic benifit

Labour can be a form of rehabilitation. (Though if you're making them work 16 hour days I would not agree.)

if your forced to work as a punishment you would get pretty pissed of with society its like flogging if you were whipped in the street you would get pretty pissed and just do something worse in revenge

I did not say they would get any hard cash for it

There are plenty of reward/benifit systems that can be setup that would not translate to an overall economic benifit

so your suggesting that prisoners work for private companies for free and in return they get benefits like a few months early release I don’t think the two mix especially when prison work will always be jobs that nobody wants

so your suggesting that prisoners work for private companies for free and in return they get benefits like a few months early release I don’t think the two mix especially when prison work will always be jobs that nobody wants

How about not letting them doing everything they can do now if they don't work? You realize what life in prison is like nowadays right?

your telling me if you could bribe some cop to get away with it every time you would be a drug dealer?

Smuggler. Different thing.

But sure. I see it as a victimless crime, so I'm not hurting anyone. The only thing that stands between me and a bunch of wealth from smuggling weed is the threat of a federal penitentiary.

Which shows that your legal system is working.

what if there’s is a sudden surge of unemployment wouldn't people just commit crimes so they can get free accommodation and money for there family?

This already happens. Homeless people will commit crimes just so they can get arrested and stay somewhere warm for the night.

How about not letting them doing everything they can do now if they don't work? You realize what life in prison is like nowadays right?

I suggest you live with no privacy and no real freedom to do or move as you please then tell me if its a dandy time in jail

so your suggesting that prisoners work for private companies for free and in return they get benefits like a few months early release I don’t think the two mix especially when prison work will always be jobs that nobody wants
Who said anything about private companies? the op was just talking about work programs

they tried that once prisoners committed suicide so much they stopped doing it and the idea was to make them think about what they did of course you cant do that for months on end can you?

I have nothing against suicide.

I suggest you live with no privacy and no real freedom to do or move as you please then tell me if its a dandy time in jail

If I'm ever down on my luck, I'm planning on robbing a bank. If a get away with it, awesome, money. If not, awesome, free food, room, utilities (which I believe includes internet access, I'll have to check. Means I can hang out with you guys.), healthcare...

Smuggler. Different thing.

But sure. I see it as a victimless crime, so I'm not hurting anyone. The only thing that stands between me and a bunch of wealth from smuggling weed is the threat of a federal penitentiary.

Which shows that your legal system is working.

well I really don't think you will get caught smuggling drugs heck why not make the stuff think about all those miles of coastline Britain has I could easily import marijuana from the Netherlands the problem is there is no demand since all the dealers either get caught or die there is also the ethical reasons behind why I don’t have a few acres of pure skunk

If I'm ever down on my luck, I'm planning on robbing a bank. If a get away with it, awesome, money. If not, awesome, free food, room, utilities (which I believe includes internet access, I'll have to check. Means I can hang out with you guys.), healthcare...

I suggest you visit prison or at least talk to ex-prisoners about what its like because what you basically think is prison is a place to go when you cant be bothered to work

I suggest you visit prison or at least talk to ex-prisoners about what its like because what you basically think is prison is a place to go when you cant be bothered to work

No, but it's a heck of a lot better than being on the street, and it's free.

If I'm ever down on my luck, I'm planning on robbing a bank. If a get away with it, awesome, money. If not, awesome, free food, room, utilities (which I believe includes internet access, I'll have to check. Means I can hang out with you guys.), healthcare...

Do it in Canada. Some of our prisons have tennis and golf.

Yes. Golf.

I have nothing against suicide.

clearly locking someone away for months or even days is literally torture otherwise these people wouldn’t of resorted to suicide to get out of it if you don’t believe me lock yourself in an empty dark room for a day and see how you feel after would

Do it in Canada. Some of our prisons have tennis and golf.

Yes. Golf.

...How about Badmington and Putt-Putt?

No, but it's a heck of a lot better than being on the street, and it's free.

you do know that there are allot of programmes to help the homeless and that if you were right then you wouldn’t see a single homeless person?

prisoners should work for the state/(federal governments if it is federal prison) doing manual labor jobs. helping to cut down on tax payers money on having to contract those jobs out. skillful prisoners could also be put to work using those certain skills, this can also help promote prisoners to learn a skill which will also in turn help them later after the time is served.

Do it in Canada. Some of our prisons have tennis and golf.

Yes. Golf.
And yet compared to england ... with harsh laws and such you have a fairly good crime rate
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics35.htm
At least up till the year 2000

you do know that there are allot of programmes to help the homeless and that if you were right then you wouldn’t see a single homeless person?

*shrug* Not every homeless person has the will to go to prison or the knowledge of what prison life is like.

you do know that there are allot of programmes to help the homeless and that if you were right then you wouldn’t see a single homeless person?

i disagree with this, it all depends on how much that person values their freedom. if shleter means more then freedom to them then they have more reason to try and get prison time. but if freedom means more then shelter (in most cases it does) then they will try to stay out of the prsion system

And yet compared to england ... with harsh laws and such you have a fairly good crime rate
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics35.htm
At least up till the year 2000

wow, what the hell did scotland do, the crime dropped alot from '92. did they send everyone to australia?

wow, what the hell did scotland do, the crime dropped alot from '92. did they send everyone to australia?
Not sure lol though twards the end they seem to follow a simmilar slope as england and canada and such

And yet compared to england ... with harsh laws and such you have a fairly good crime rate
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics35.htm
At least up till the year 2000

I think that's largely a functon of crowding. Canada's a big, empty country. We don't interact with each other much.

you do know that there are allot of programmes to help the homeless and that if you were right then you wouldn’t see a single homeless person?

During Canadian winters, I don't. Homeless people will go to great lengths to avoid sleeping outside when it's -30°C.

I think that's largely a functon of crowding. Canada's a big, empty country. We don't interact with each other much.



During Canadian winters, I don't. Homeless people will go to great lengths to avoid sleeping outside when it's -30°C.
Possibly ... though there is no evidence that I have seen any day (if I had the data I would run a regression for ya but ...)

But the relitive slopes are close ... so neigher is decreasing or increasing relitive to eachother much so there are simmilar factors at work whatever they are

I suppose that they could take care of the suicide part of solitary confinement if they just hooked them up to an IV of a good paralytic and TPN, after all, it's hard to kill yourself if you have no voluntary muscle control, even if you are completely consious.

Now there would be a problem with muscle atrophy, but I suppose they could work on that later.

An excellent use for society's degenerates and moral parasites.

How do you feel about Prison Labor? Should more prisons enact hard labor and factory programs for inmates? Would this make it a way for prisoners to work off their debt to society? As long as human rights are not being violated, do you think inmates should be forced to work? What about mandatory drug rehabilitation and community blood drives from inmates?

I think that it's a bad idea for the government to make money off of imprisoning people. It provides too much incentive to incarcerate more people, whether they should be in prison or not.

if your forced to work as a punishment you would get pretty pissed of with society its like flogging if you were whipped in the street you would get pretty pissed and just do something worse in revenge


Then just shoot the fucks. Rehabilitation can only go so far. There are those that can be, and those who can't. As far as i'm concerned, rapists, murderers and the like lost their human rights when they disrespected those rights of others.

How do you feel about Prison Labor? Should more prisons enact hard labor and factory programs for inmates? Would this make it a way for prisoners to work off their debt to society? As long as human rights are not being violated, do you think inmates should be forced to work? What about mandatory drug rehabilitation and community blood drives from inmates?

I seem to remember, but don't want to bother looking it up right now, hearing about a warden who had the inmates doing just about everything themselves. They built their "housing" in the desert. They did the cooking, growing of vegetables, etc. They had little time or energy for rioting, plus the costs to the state were lower. I also vaguely remember the return rate for prisoners who had served there time there was significantly lower. I really hate that there are actually people who lobby for prisoners to have things like satellite TV. I don't even have that. I sometimes joke about how I could go rob a bank or something and get free room/board, medical, dental, cable, etc. It also kind of depends on what your view of the purpose of a prison is. Is it punishment, or an attempt at rehabilitation? If it is punishment, why do they get all these things so many in our society don't have? If it is rehabilitation, it is failing. My mom married a guy serving a stretch for drug charges. He once told me if they'd given him the years they did this time the first time, instead of some piddly 6 months thing, he never would have gotten in trouble the second time. I'm not entirely sure I believe he has rehabilitated, but the sentiment is still a good one.

I seem to remember, but don't want to bother looking it up right now, hearing about a warden who had the inmates doing just about everything themselves. They built their "housing" in the desert. They did the cooking, growing of vegetables, etc. They had little time or energy for rioting, plus the costs to the state were lower. I also vaguely remember the return rate for prisoners who had served there time there was significantly lower. I really hate that there are actually people who lobby for prisoners to have things like satellite TV. I don't even have that. I sometimes joke about how I could go rob a bank or something and get free room/board, medical, dental, cable, etc. It also kind of depends on what your view of the purpose of a prison is. Is it punishment, or an attempt at rehabilitation? If it is punishment, why do they get all these things so many in our society don't have? If it is rehabilitation, it is failing. My wife married a guy serving a stretch for drug charges. He once told me if they'd given him the years they did this time the first time, instead of some piddly 6 months thing, he never would have gotten in trouble the second time. I'm not entirely sure I believe he has rehabilitated, but the sentiment is still a good one.


It has been shown that TV and other entertainment reduces riots and other violent behavior in prison populations.

I don’t know about you but I am all for making sure both the guards are safe and other inmates not involved are safe as well as reducing the costs to run the prison

I think that it's a bad idea for the government to make money off of imprisoning people. It provides too much incentive to incarcerate more people, whether they should be in prison or not.


You are an idiot. This has nothing to do with setting up a Prison works system for the government. This is about putting prisoners to work as rehabilitation and as a means to keep them busy and work off their debt to society. No one is advocating setting up a system of slavery here.:rolleyes:

These people are in prison for a reason. Murder, drug dealing, rape, robbery, etc. These are CRIMES and the people have a right to PUNISH the criminals. There is too much idle time in prisons, and this is time that could be best used to keep prisoners from establishing gangs, continuing criminal activities, and keep them busy while paying society back for their crimes.

I dont agree with the idea of having prisoners engage in labour for the sake of mitigating the cost of their imprisonment (for the taxpayer). The more it costs to imprison people, the more reason we have to seek not to imprison people.

I dont agree with the idea of having prisoners engage in labour for the sake of mitigating the cost of their imprisonment (for the taxpayer). The more it costs to imprison people, the more reason we have to seek not to imprison people.

Wha? In that case, all we'd do is arrest fewer people and give shorter sentences, not any ideal you may have in mind.

I dont agree with the idea of having prisoners engage in labour for the sake of mitigating the cost of their imprisonment (for the taxpayer). The more it costs to imprison people, the more reason we have to seek not to imprison people.


Er, i'm having dificulty following that logic. So, the point of giving all those luxuries to inmates, is to increase the cost of their incarceration, so that, eventually, we'll have to stop putting people in prison? My god, that's brilliant. Criminals of the world, rejoice! Your freedom is at hand!:rolleyes:

..what type of work are we talking?

I see prisoners as a great source of charity volunteers. After all, they're in prison for committing a crime against society, why not put them on the other side and have them help out society? Soup-kitchens, food bank workers, envelope lickers, emergency clothes distributors, etc.

The difficult part is that you'd have to find charity jobs where the charity essentially requires a lot of people in a single room in order to effectively supervise the prisoners. But hey, you've got prisoners available to do the research to see if they can find places and tasks that'd be suitable for the program.

Wha? In that case, all we'd do is arrest fewer people and give shorter sentences, not any ideal you may have in mind.
Arresting fewer people and giving shorter sentences does not necessarily follow from 'not forcing prisoners to engage in labour'.

Er, i'm having dificulty following that logic.
So it appears.
So, the point of giving all those luxuries to inmates,
Luxeries? Which luxeries?

is to increase the cost of their incarceration, so that, eventually, we'll have to stop putting people in prison?
Er, no.

My god, that's brilliant. Criminals of the world, rejoice! Your freedom is at hand!
I guess if you really like straw men you might consider your post an example of 'brilliance'....:rolleyes:

So far as I can tell either the cost of incarceration of criminals should be negliable (in the context of a society's overall productivity) or the society is dysfunctional - either it is excessively criminalising and imprisoning its members or it is producing excessive criminality in its members.

So it's not necessary to alleviate a negliable cost, or it does nothing to address a more urgent problem (the production of excessive criminality) or it is counter-productive (making it cheaper to excessively criminalise).

So far as I can tell either the cost of incarceration of criminals should be negliable (in the context of the societies overall productivity) or the society is dysfunctional - either it is excessively criminalising and imprisoning its members or it is producing excessive criminality in its members.

So it's not necessary to alleviate a negliable cost, or it doesnt nothing to address a more urgent problem (the production of excessive criminality) or it is counter-productive (making it cheaper to excessively criminalise).

Uh-huh...You realize keeping one guy for a year is like, 35,000 dollars or summat, right? And how exactly do we "excessively criminalize"?

Personally, I'd have them in solitary permanently, except for lessons on how to be a civilised human being. I suppose a little work too, if for nothing else then to get them used to doing a non-criminal job.

I think that it's a bad idea for the government to make money off of imprisoning people. It provides too much incentive to incarcerate more people, whether they should be in prison or not.

Exactly right. Also if the work they do competes with free enterprise which uses non-slave labor there is a problem.

I also wonder about a society that thinks of working as equal to punishment.

Prisons have no problem whatsoever getting prisoners to volunteer to do work just to break the monotony. Especially any work that can be done outside the prison walls. labor, even hard dangerous labor like fighting forest and brush fires in the heat of summer are highly sought after positions. And largely the prisoners who get these positions are not keen to do the slightest thing wrong lest they lose them.

Go talk to a con if you really want to know what motivates one. More time sitting on his ass in a cell is NOT it.

Arresting fewer people and giving shorter sentences does not necessarily follow from 'not forcing prisoners to engage in labour'.

No, I saying that assuming the high price will reduce crimalization will only reduce it in that manner, not some utopian ideal you may have in mind.

Uh-huh...You realize keeping one guy for a year is like, 35,000 dollars or summat, right? And how exactly do we "excessively criminalize"?
Yes I do realise that imprisoning a person costs 10's of thousands of dollars a year.
Who's we?

A society can excessively criminalise its members by criminalising acts unnecessarily.

Yes I do realise that imprisoning a person costs 10's of thousands of dollars a year.
Who's we?

A society can excessively criminalise its members by criminalising acts unnecessarily.

And where would we happen to be doing that?

Yes I do realise that imprisoning a person costs 10's of thousands of dollars a year.

That's too much. We should be able to bring that price down.

The difficult part is that you'd have to find charity jobs where the charity essentially requires a lot of people in a single room in order to effectively supervise the prisoners. But hey, you've got prisoners available to do the research to see if they can find places and tasks that'd be suitable for the program.

You can let a pickuptruck load of cons (even armed robbers and manslaughterers with many years left to go on their sentences) with shovels loose on a hillside and tell them to meet back on a fire road at a given time and they will all do so with proper motivation.

I guess if you really like straw men you might consider your post an example of 'brilliance'....:rolleyes:

So far as I can tell either the cost of incarceration of criminals should be negliable (in the context of a society's overall productivity) or the society is dysfunctional - either it is excessively criminalising and imprisoning its members or it is producing excessive criminality in its members.

So it's not necessary to alleviate a negliable cost, or it does nothing to address a more urgent problem (the production of excessive criminality) or it is counter-productive (making it cheaper to excessively criminalise).

Alright then. Personally, i don't think that the purpose of putting them to work is to lessen the burden on the state's (or whomever's) expenses, it is simply one of the "perks" included.
What luxuries, you ask. I wonder. Tv, internet, sports, contact with their families (as restricted as it might be), these are all basic necessities, right? Is it so hard to understand that they're not there for summer camp? They're doing time, for a reason.

The reason, apparently, is society's fault, right? Yes, yes, you didn't say that outright, but you might as well. It's funny though, that no matter how unfair society is, some "few" people still manage to live in it without breaking the law. Still, you are right, it does produce "excessive criminality". Is that the fault of the judicial system? Obviously, the quickest solution to drop crime, is to legalize everything, right? That way we wouldn't have to arrest those poor criminals, who are not responsible for their own behaviour. Society made them what they are, right?

Wrong, they fucked up, and they pay for it. That simple. If they have to sweat a little to make the message clearer, and it saves money in the process, even better.

Wrong, they fucked up, and they pay for it. That simple. If they have to sweat a little to make the message clearer, and it saves money in the process, even better.


You are under the mistaken impression that cons would rather sit on their asses and be bored than work. Work makes time incarcerated easier and not harder.

No, I saying that assuming the high price will reduce crimalization will only reduce it in that manner, not some utopian ideal you may have in mind.
The assumption however appears to have originated with you. Nothing I said indicates that we should increase the cost of incarceration, nor did I suggest that keeping the cost high would reduce crime.

My point is that either a society's 'incarceration cost' is negliable (relative to overall productivity) or the society is dysfunctional.

Either the numbers of people who genuinely 'ought' to be incarcerated is negliable in terms of the overall population, or the society has problems that need to be addressed and the measure we are discussing (enforced prison labour) is indirectly counter-productive (ie a distraction) or directly ecounter-productive (ie encourages the status quo and/or a worsening of the problematic factors, or discourages actioning solutions).

The assumption however appears to have originated with you. Nothing I said indicates that we should increase the cost of incarceration, nor did I suggest that keeping the cost high would reduce crime.

My point is that either a society's 'incarceration cost' is negliable (relative to overall productivity) or the society is dysfunctional.

Either the numbers of people who genuinely 'ought' to be incarcerated is negliable in terms of the overall population, or the society has problems that need to be addressed and the measure we are discussing (enforced prison labour) is indirectly counter-productive (ie a distraction) or directly ecounter-productive (ie encourages the status quo and/or a worsening of the problematic factors, or discourages actioning solutions).

I would have to say that 35k a year per con is negigable compared with having them freely mixing with the public unabated.

You are under the mistaken impression that cons would rather sit on their asses and be bored than work. Work makes time incarcerated easier and not harder.


No, no. I realise that. But there's work, and there's work. Being stuck inside a cell all day has to suck, in more ways than one. But not all work is pleasant, even compared to being stuck in a cell. I am under the impression, yes, that they should be "excessively" worked around. Failed to get that across, sorry.

The assumption however appears to have originated with you. Nothing I said indicates that we should increase the cost of incarceration, nor did I suggest that keeping the cost high would reduce crime.

My point is that either a society's 'incarceration cost' is negliable (relative to overall productivity) or the society is dysfunctional.

Either the numbers of people who genuinely 'ought' to be incarcerated is negliable in terms of the overall population, or the society has problems that need to be addressed and the measure we are discussing (enforced prison labour) is indirectly counter-productive (ie a distraction) or directly ecounter-productive (ie encourages the status quo and/or a worsening of the problematic factors, or discourages actioning solutions).

...So...Can you fit this into not having prisoners do some work?

My point is that either a society's 'incarceration cost' is negliable (relative to overall productivity) or the society is dysfunctional.

I'd love you to support that assertion.

OK, a few ideas here. We need to classify people in a few categories - the minor offenders, the major offenders, the social dangers, and the real fuck-ups. Minor offenders are people who made one mistake...got into a bar fight, shoplifted, stole a car stereo, etc. Major offenders are above this...drunk drivers, repeat offenders, and white-collar criminals, by and large. I suppose drug offenders should go here, but only the traffickers who support terrorism in foreign nations. People who are caught with a few ounces of crack should be rehabilitated in detox centers, not sent to prison. Social dangers are rapists, murderers, and people who could cause real damage. When I refer to "real fuck-ups," I refer to people like Zacarias Moussaoui or Timothy McVeigh - people who are either guilty of or in cahoots with people who are guilty of mass murder on such levels as Oklahoma City or 9/11. These are the people who would be almost impossible to rehabilitate using conventional means. Therefore, I think I can categorize what to do with criminals in much the same way we categorize storms. It's a bit unorthodox, but hear me out.

Category 1 - these are people who commit most traffic offenses, steal DVDs out of stores, and, since the U.S. absolutely insists on having marijuana possession as a criminal offense, possession of marijuana. For offenses such as this, fines and community service are in order. No jail time, no probation. No need. Bear in mind that people can incur some other penalties for this (required classes, loss of driver's license, etc.) However, there's no need to lock up people for stealing the latest X-Box game or for driving with a busted taillight.

Category 2 - these are for more severe offenses. People who break into cars to swipe stereos are here. First-offense assault generally goes here if it's without a weapon (or if it's a fight and both people have weapons. Firearms don't count in this) so people who get into bar fights go here. Abusive spouses who use only their hands go here; abusive spouses who use weapons go higher than this. These people generally get some community service, certainly some probation, but maybe not a lengthy jail sentence.

Category 3 - for even more severe offenses. Abusive spouses who repeat their offenses go here. People who use weapons against unarmed people go here. Drunk drivers go here. Manslaughter is a Category 3 offense. Stealing a car goes here as well. These people get jail time and would be put to work. In jail, work is six hours a day, six days a week, and rehabilitation takes up most of the rest of the day. People can learn a new trade or something. Something to keep them busy.

Category 4 - these are some of the worst offenders, but not the worst of the worst. Rapists, murderers, attempted murderers, and people who can't seem to stop committing Category 3 offenses go here. Child molesters certainly go here. People who harm someone to the point of leaving permanent mental damage go here; permanent physical damage is a bit less likely to go here. Simply put, these people are worked like crazy - all day, seven days a week, no weekends or holidays. Time away only for injuries or illness, and even then, they are kept under lockdown. After a fair amount of this - say, six months - rehabilitation can begin, and it is attempted. If it is successful, it continues, and people can learn trades or something in addition to work. If it is unsuccessful, all-day labor continues. If disruptions continue, and neither rehabilitation nor forced labor is successful at breaking down the criminal element in a prisoner (thus enabling them to be rebuilt as a productive member of society) then they may ultimately have to become...

Category 5 - for the worst of the worst. Terrorists, mass murderers, sick sons-of-bitches, and people from Category 4 who can't be helped. These people become guinea pigs for experimental Clockwork Orange-style rehabilitation. Possible forced lobotomies (not the type that turn them into vegetables...they can do it by laser now and leave them able to function) may be in order. Perhaps the worst of the worst can be rehabilitated and re-introduced into Category 4 prisons at first. Then they are put to work, worked until they drop, rehabilitated, and hopefully become effective prisoners.

Alright then. Personally, i don't think that the purpose of putting them to work is to lessen the burden on the state's (or whomever's) expenses, it is simply one of the "perks" included.
The purpose is relevent to whether or not I would agree or disagree with the 'proposed labour'.
What luxuries, you ask. I wonder. Tv, internet, sports, contact with their families (as restricted as it might be), these are all basic necessities, right?
You have extracted these luxeries from somewhere other than my comments. I certainly dont believe TV, the internet, sports and family visits are 'basic necessities' of life. Nor do I believe that they must necessarily be supplied or even accessable to incarcerated prisoners.
It might be that in some or many circumstances, some or all of the items you list facilitate or promote the 'best possible outcome', that being the case, then they ought to be treated accordingly.
Is it so hard to understand that they're not there for summer camp? They're doing time, for a reason.
I certainly wouldnt expect people to be in prison for no reason whatsoever. As for the conditions, I really dont care if they do feel like summer camp if that is what best achieves the 'best possible outcome in the circumstances' (although I would also note that I'm not at all convinced 'summer camp' conditions would best achieve 'the best possible outcome').
The reason, apparently, is society's fault, right?
:confused: Fault?:confused:
Yes, yes, you didn't say that outright, but you might as well.
You have misinterpeted my comments. Nothing I have said asigns 'fault' so far as I can tell.
So far as I can tell the three possibilities I outlined are the only possibilities and so at least one of them must be true (more than one could be true).
Even if I have misreasoned (there is some other possibility), the argument is still a logical/empiracal argument not a normative/moral argument.
In other words fault has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument I made.
It's funny though, that no matter how unfair society is, some "few" people still manage to live in it without breaking the law. Still, you are right, it does produce "excessive criminality".
What does? Do you for instance have a particular society in mind?
Is that the fault of the judicial system?
Which justice system?
Obviously, the quickest solution to drop crime, is to legalize everything, right?
If everything were legal and nothing were criminal, then there would be less crime - that's logically true of course.
That way we wouldn't have to arrest those poor criminals, who are not responsible for their own behaviour. Society made them what they are, right?

:confused:
You seem to be in a completely different conversation...
Wrong, they fucked up, and they pay for it. That simple.
No it's not that simple.
I for one dont care if they 'pay'.
I want a criminal system to do one thing and only one thing - minimise the harm arising from crime; crime I consider to be those acts that 'victimise' some entity (for instance by unlawfully appropriating property, physical assault, etc).
I want the criminal system to minimise the number of crimes, and minimise the harm produced by the crimes that do occur.
(By the way) none of this asserts any blame. Nor does it suggest what are the best ways to minimise crime, although clearly over-criminalisation would in itself be a problem (if/where it ocurs).
If they have to sweat a little to make the message clearer, and it saves money in the process, even better.
In the process of what?
I dont exclude labouring, but I do exclude labouring for the purpose of alleviating the cost of incarcerating criminals.

Just to clarify: I have not made any assertions about blame, fault etc. I have not referred to an actual society or particular criminal system.

...So...Can you fit this into not having prisoners do some work?
I'm not going to repeat the whole conversation branch...
To summarise: I do not agree that with the suggestion of having prisoners engage in labour for the purpose of alleviating the cost of their incarceration.

If the cost of incarceration is negliable relative to the overall productivity of the society, then why would bother? If the cost is high then our efforts would be better spent fixing that problem rather than making the ignoring the problem 'cheaper'.
Originally Posted by Zagat
My point is that either a society's 'incarceration cost' is negliable (relative to overall productivity) or the society is dysfunctional.
I'd love you to support that assertion.
Either people sufficiently anti-social and deviant (within their society's 'bounds') to warrant imprisonment are very small in numbers compared to the overall productive population, or the society is characterised by excessive criminality - being characterised by excessive criminality is (IMO) dysfunctional.

*snip*

How about having them work because it can be helpful?

How about having them work because it can be helpful?
Helpful in what way?
So far as I am concerned prisons are part of the criminal system and the purpose of the criminal system should be (in my opinion) to minimise the harm arising from crime - if the labour is helpful in achieving this goal, then of course it should be treated accordingly.
If however the labour serves no direct purpose in minimising the harm arising from crime, but is incidently helpful in some other way, then no.