VICE Special Report on Prisons: 'Fixing The System'

[video=youtube;bjWSW94-P3Y]

 

This airs September 27th.

 

Should be fantastic.

Interesting.

 

Nice aerial towards the end of the Max security prison (Graterford) located less than 2 miles from my house. They are in process of building a new $400 million prison to replace the current one.

I believe there should be an over haul. Especially guys with drug offenses. Problem is as noted above re the $400 million prison being built is that there is a lot of money to be made by small towns that run prisons.

I believe there should be an over haul. Especially guys with drug offenses. Problem is as noted above re the $400 million prison being built is that there is a lot of money to be made by small towns that run prisons.

 

Legalizing (and subsequently regulating and taxing) drugs would be a massive first step, followed shortly by commuted sentences and/or pardons for all petty drug offenses across the nation for non-violent offenders currently in prison for drug-related charges.

 

Even if prisons remained privatized (something I don't think you'll see change for a while), just undoing so much of the needless congestion they encounter because of drug use would go a long way to alleviating some of the stresses they operate with in dealing with things like overcrowding and under-staffing due to overcrowding.

 

Also on the list to tackle: abuse of prisoners, especially through the use of solitary confinement (proven to drive human beings insane), as well as prison rape and sexual abuse, which could also be addressed on a national level by changing how the culture of the U.S. thinks of it so nonchalantly.

Legalizing (and subsequently regulating and taxing) drugs would be a massive first step, followed shortly by commuted sentences and/or pardons for all petty drug offenses across the nation for non-violent offenders currently in prison for drug-related charges.

 

Even if prisons remained privatized (something I don't think you'll see change for a while), just undoing so much of the needless congestion they encounter because of drug use would go a long way to alleviating some of the stresses they operate with in dealing with things like overcrowding and under-staffing due to overcrowding.

 

Also on the list to tackle: abuse of prisoners, especially through the use of solitary confinement (proven to drive human beings insane), as well as prison rape and sexual abuse, which could also be addressed on a national level by changing how the culture of the U.S. thinks of it so nonchalantly.

 

I don't care about legalizing marijuana, thats fine, but you can't legalize other drugs. Coke, meth, heroin are deadly and are killing many younger people. I say legalize marijuana, make it like alcohol. Regulate it and tax it, and imprison those that sell it on the black market.

 

As for the your last paragraph, in regards to solitary confinement, you need some type of punishment for prisoners who act up. I also feel that if you murder someone, you should be in a cell 23 hours a day by yourself. If you take someone else's life, why should you have any perks in life? The problem with prison rape and sexual abuse is that most of these prisons are run by gangs. Unless you can segregate these gang members from each other, your always going to have this. There simply aren't enough guards to watch everyone at every second, and lets be honest, a lot of these prison guards aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. I used to hate dealing with corrections simply because of how they act.

 

To me, prisoners shouldn't have TV or get free education in prison. If those that don't break the law can't get a free education, why should those that do get a free education? Prisons need an overhaul, but we also shouldn't be too PC about it.

I don't care about legalizing marijuana, thats fine, but you can't legalize other drugs. Coke, meth, heroin are deadly and are killing many younger people. I say legalize marijuana, make it like alcohol. Regulate it and tax it, and imprison those that sell it on the black market.

 

If you could go to the store and buy cocaine the way you buy alcohol, where it's taxed and regulated, and likely being produced by companies who must follow regulations themselves with regard to purity/quality, I doubt you see death-rates like you see now where people are OD'ing left and right on drugs they can't verify for quality.

 

Besides, alcohol alone, excluding cars and other overlying issues, is a huge killer. One of the leading categories of deaths in the nation every year. Far more than most drugs. Yet have entire businesses built around its consumption (bars, clubs, nightclubs, sporting events, etc). All of which are well regulated and well taxed. So why can't the same be done for drugs? If people want to recreationally use cocaine, why should we stop them when we don't stop them from getting so drunk they kill themselves at equal or excessive rates?

 

Weed is a given. Should be legalized nationally and taxed. The economy would benefit from this greatly.

 

As for the your last paragraph, in regards to solitary confinement, you need some type of punishment for prisoners who act up. I also feel that if you murder someone, you should be in a cell 23 hours a day by yourself. If you take someone else's life, why should you have any perks in life? The problem with prison rape and sexual abuse is that most of these prisons are run by gangs. Unless you can segregate these gang members from each other, your always going to have this.

 

Yes, you need a type of punishment for prisoners who act up. Solitary confinement, however, is not a solution. It’s a form of torture that has proven to be not just ineffective as a rehabilitative measure, but to actually backfire on the intent of it’s use. Because it’s torture. Psychologists and neural science has proven this.

 

It causes prisoners exposed to it to lose their ability to control their anger, which often results in longer stints in solitary, thus creating a vicious cycle of increased irritability, flashes of rage, mental psychosis, paranoia, etc. The prison complex demands that they act accordingly all while punishing them in a manner that only increases the odds they won’t. This is backwards.

 

io9 has a fantastic breakdown on why solitary confinement is the worst kind of psychological torture on the planet: http://io9.com/why-solitary-confinement-is-the-worst-kind-of-psycholog-1598543595

 

I urge you to read it and really take into account the statistical data they’ve compiled.

 

The fact is, prisons are designed to rehabilitate inmates but don’t, largely because rehabilitation by it’s nature is to seek improvement of character, where the manner in which most prisoners are treated is degrading, which reduces their character. More than 650,000 ex-offenders get released from prison every year, and nearly two thirds return to prison, again adding to the vicious cycle of prisons creating worse and worse people that are routinely re-released into the public.

 

The answer is clearly not more solitary, or more punishment, or more prisons, or more bars. It’s more education. Better education. Better corrective measures. Better rehabilitation.

 

There simply aren't enough guards to watch everyone at every second, and lets be honest, a lot of these prison guards aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. I used to hate dealing with corrections simply because of how they act.

 

Then they don't belong in that job. Prisoners are people too. Turning a blind eye to sexual assault is a luxury we can afford only because they're locked up. Out of sight, out of mind, but that doesn't make it right.

 

To me, prisoners shouldn't have TV or get free education in prison. If those that don't break the law can't get a free education, why should those that do get a free education? Prisons need an overhaul, but we also shouldn't be too PC about it.

 

So you want prisons to be even less about reform than they are now? Then call them what they are — retribution centers. Not rehabilitation. No corrections. Because your goal is clearly only to punish, not correct wrong behavior.

If you could go to the store and buy cocaine the way you buy alcohol, where it's taxed and regulated, and likely being produced by companies who must follow regulations themselves with regard to purity/quality, I doubt you see death-rates like you see now where people are OD'ing left and right on drugs they can't verify for quality.

 

Besides, alcohol alone, excluding cars and other overlying issues, is a huge killer. One of the leading categories of deaths in the nation every year. Far more than most drugs. Yet have entire businesses built around its consumption (bars, clubs, nightclubs, sporting events, etc). All of which are well regulated and well taxed. So why can't the same be done for drugs? If people want to recreationally use cocaine, why should we stop them when we don't stop them from getting so drunk they kill themselves at equal or excessive rates?

 

Weed is a given. Should be legalized nationally and taxed. The economy would benefit from this greatly.

 

 

 

Yes, you need a type of punishment for prisoners who act up. Solitary confinement, however, is not a solution. It’s a form of torture that has proven to be not just ineffective as a rehabilitative measure, but to actually backfire on the intent of it’s use. Because it’s torture. Psychologists and neural science has proven this.

 

It causes prisoners exposed to it to lose their ability to control their anger, which often results in longer stints in solitary, thus creating a vicious cycle of increased irritability, flashes of rage, mental psychosis, paranoia, etc. The prison complex demands that they act accordingly all while punishing them in a manner that only increases the odds they won’t. This is backwards.

 

io9 has a fantastic breakdown on why solitary confinement is the worst kind of psychological torture on the planet: http://io9.com/why-solitary-confinement-is-the-worst-kind-of-psycholog-1598543595

 

I urge you to read it and really take into account the statistical data they’ve compiled.

 

The fact is, prisons are designed to rehabilitate inmates but don’t, largely because rehabilitation by it’s nature is to seek improvement of character, where the manner in which most prisoners are treated is degrading, which reduces their character. More than 650,000 ex-offenders get released from prison every year, and nearly two thirds return to prison, again adding to the vicious cycle of prisons creating worse and worse people that are routinely re-released into the public.

 

The answer is clearly not more solitary, or more punishment, or more prisons, or more bars. It’s more education. Better education. Better corrective measures. Better rehabilitation.

 

 

 

Then they don't belong in that job. Prisoners are people too. Turning a blind eye to sexual assault is a luxury we can afford only because they're locked up. Out of sight, out of mind, but that doesn't make it right.

 

 

 

So you want prisons to be even less about reform than they are now? Then call them what they are — retribution centers. Not rehabilitation. No corrections. Because your goal is clearly only to punish, not correct wrong behavior.

 

I will whole heartedly agree that half the people who are corrections officers shouldn't have been hired.

 

As for what I bolded, if there is a way to rehab or correct people locked up, then do it, but they don't need to get a free education when there are plenty of people who aren't robbing or burglarizing others that can't afford an education. The problem is that too many people make prisoners the victims. They are in prison because they did something wrong, it is meant for punishment. They don't need TV when plenty of homeless families or poor people live with out TV. Like I said, there needs to be changes, but less also not make people who commit crimes the victim because while they are crying that they are in a cell alone by them selves, there is a family out there that lost a loved one and that loved one can never enjoy the company of someone else. I don't feel bad that people are unhappy in jail, that should be deterrent enough. Like the saying goes, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

I will whole heartedly agree that half the people who are corrections officers shouldn't have been hired.

 

As for what I bolded, if there is a way to rehab or correct people locked up, then do it, but they don't need to get a free education when there are plenty of people who aren't robbing or burglarizing others that can't afford an education. The problem is that too many people make prisoners the victims. They are in prison because they did something wrong, it is meant for punishment. They don't need TV when plenty of homeless families or poor people live with out TV. Like I said, there needs to be changes, but less also not make people who commit crimes the victim because while they are crying that they are in a cell alone by them selves, there is a family out there that lost a loved one and that loved one can never enjoy the company of someone else. I don't feel bad that people are unhappy in jail, that should be deterrent enough. Like the saying goes, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

 

Education is a way to rehab or correct people who are locked up. Probably the most effective one possible. Education and re-education through correctional programs designed to improve their character that are offered within the prison system are measures both preventative and reactionary, that contribute to decreasing the likelihood of reincarceration, and to increasing the chances of that ex-offender bettering their lives despite having gone to prison.

 

Those being released (again 650,000 ex-offenders are released every year) would be on better ground to begin their lives again as productive members of society if we focused on this type of rehabilitation, instead of allowing them to become outcasts, forced into lives of crime because they're treated as fucking lepers, where we, as a society, fail to recognize we are giving them no other choice.

 

If John Q, a black man from Chicago, is arrested on possession charges (weed) and ends up in prison for let's say two years where he's routinely abused by other inmates and CO's, placed in solitary as "punishment" for let's say 25% of his time there, isn't given access to educational materials (since you don't think he's worth educating) and is subsequently released upon completion of his sentence... what exactly do you think he's going to do with his life having come out of prison an even worse person, in even worse mental shape than he went in, with even less education?

 

No one will hire him because he's an ex-con, you deprived him any education of any kind because you didn't think he deserved to have it, having been convicted of a petty crime, lowering the chances of him being hired even further... and you expect he's just going to figure it out? He'll be just fine? You're throwing a physically and mentally abused ex-convict into a society that hates him, and you wonder why reincarceration rates are nearly two-thirds of all released prisoners?

 

You say prison is meant for punishment. You're wrong. It's called the Corrections Department for a reason. It's designed to rehabilitate inmates, especially those who will be re-released into the public, as part of their punishment. Much in the same way you punish children who do wrong by correcting their behavior through punishment. Not just abusing them and expecting them to "get it".

 

I notice you completely glossed over the points I made about solitary, so I'm assuming you either don't care or are still in the process of reading about that?

Then let them pay for it, not tax payers. Set them up in a program when they are released for education, but while they are serving their punishment, they dont deserve it. Why help convicted felons over law abiding citizens that cant afford it? Makes zero sense to me to do it. No one forced these people to rob, burglarize, shoot or murder anyone, so punish them first and then give them a program.

I get the feeling you're drawing a false dichotomy, but before we get there, let's ground this first.

 

Who you are talking about who can't afford an education who is not incarcerated?

Im talking about the many people who cant afford to go to college because they dont have the means to afford it because they are barely scraping by. People who are lower class and cant afford or even get a loan to pay for school. There are many people who get deadend low paying jobs simply because they cant afford college. These are the people we should give a free education to, not someone doing 10 years for armed robbery where they physically beat someone in hopse that they turn it around. There are a large majority of people in jail that once they get out, they go right back to doing what they were doing before they were put away the first time, and giving them an education isnt going to stop them from still committing crimes. And like I said earlier, if they dont want to be in solitary confinement, then they need to obey the rules and behave while doing their time. They put themselves there, and outside of the few who truely are innocent and behind bars, I dont feel bad for them. They shouldnt get perks for commiting crimes, especially when their victims/victims families are suffering.

Im talking about the many people who cant afford to go to college because they dont have the means to afford it because they are barely scraping by. People who are lower class and cant afford or even get a loan to pay for school. There are many people who get deadend low paying jobs simply because they cant afford college. These are the people we should give a free education to, not someone doing 10 years for armed robbery where they physically beat someone in hopse that they turn it around.

 

OK, but that's a larger discussion. The false dichotomy I was expecting is the one where what you are arguing effectively implies that the same money being used to fund rehabilitation projects is being taken out of projects that would otherwise make college free. This isn't true. It's entirely possible to fund rehabilitation projects within prisons to educate prisoners and to de-privatize colleges and secondary schools so that they are free or mostly free for anyone looking for an advanced education.

 

The fact of the matter is, it's not always the "worst of the worst" in prison. I don't have the actual statistics on me, but a significant portion of the currently imprisoned U.S. population will get out during their lifetime, most at a relatively young age, and it's incumbent upon the Correction's Department and the DOJ to be rehabilitating the citizens incarcerated right now. Not creating worse ones who are more likely to re-enter an already crowded and broken system by refusing them educations they may not have completed or gotten even to a high school level before being imprisoned. And certainly not by routinely using torture devices like solitary confinement as long-term housing solutions or disciplinary solutions.

 

There are a large majority of people in jail that once they get out, they go right back to doing what they were doing before they were put away the first time, and giving them an education isnt going to stop them from still committing crimes.

 

You have data to support this?

 

And like I said earlier, if they dont want to be in solitary confinement, then they need to obey the rules and behave while doing their time. They put themselves there, and outside of the few who truely are innocent and behind bars, I dont feel bad for them. They shouldnt get perks for commiting crimes, especially when their victims/victims families are suffering.

 

You're back to accepting solitary confinement as an acceptable form of punishment. It's not. It's not even a form of punishment. It's a form of torture that even the U.N. has urged the U.S. to stop using, because the data they collected on it found that it drove people crazy, which only made them more prone to bouts of anger and rage that would in turn only extend their solitary stints.

 

Again, did you actually read the io9 article I posted before?

 

The logic for this is really simple:

 

1A. Isolating criminals from society and the every day rights we get as free members of it is punishment.

1B. Solitary confinement is torture (scientifically proven fact).

 

2. Torture is not equal to punishment. It's equal to revenge and crime. If you torture someone outside the walls of a a prison, for example, you've committed a crime for which you should be put behind the walls of a prison, regardless of why you did so, or who you did so to.

 

3. Torture causes harmful effects that lead to crime (increased levels of violence).

 

4. Many of the prisoners behind bars today will be free within their lifetime

 

5A. Those being released who were tortured are more likely to commit crime again because of that torture and the effect it has on their mental state.

5B. Those being released who were not tortured, but punished, are less likely to commit crime again. Especially those who have access to educational programs within the prison system designed to make them better citizens upon their release.

 

And if you want to get into the economic factor of all of this...

 

6. More crime equates to more tax money (the kind you want to see used to make college free for everyone) being used for building more bars, more guards, more prisons, which operate using the torture of solitary, which brings this all full circle.

Also, the educational programs built into prisons aren't college educations. They are GED and basic level classes for people who have little to no education in the first place. There are college courses that are available to some prisoners, but those are not free, and they are correspondence courses:

 

Researchers at the RAND Corporation found through an analysis of past studies, released on Thursday, that inmates who participate in correctional education programs have a 43 percent lower chance of returning to prison than those who do not. Additionally, if prisoners participated in academic or vocational education programs, their chances of employment after release were 13 percent higher than their peers.

 

"Our findings suggest that we no longer need to debate whether correctional education works," said lead researcher Lois Davis, in a statement.

 

Each year, about 700,000 people leave federal and state prisons and about half of them return to prison within three years, according to the Department of Justice. The report suggests that education programs can help lower the costs associated with returning to jail.

 

Educational programs cost about $1,400 to $1,744 per inmate each year, according to the report, and can save prisons between $8,700 and $9,700 per inmate, the costs associated with incarcerating them again. Put another way, each dollar spent on funding prison education programs reduces incarceration costs by $4 to $5 during the first three years after an individual is released, the period when those leaving prison are most likely to return.

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/08/22/report-prison-education-programs-could-save-money

OK, but that's a larger discussion. The false dichotomy I was expecting is the one where what you are arguing effectively implies that the same money being used to fund rehabilitation projects is being taken out of projects that would otherwise make college free. This isn't true. It's entirely possible to fund rehabilitation projects within prisons to educate prisoners and to de-privatize colleges and secondary schools so that they are free or mostly free for anyone looking for an advanced education.

 

The fact of the matter is, it's not always the "worst of the worst" in prison. I don't have the actual statistics on me, but a significant portion of the currently imprisoned U.S. population will get out during their lifetime, most at a relatively young age, and it's incumbent upon the Correction's Department and the DOJ to be rehabilitating the citizens incarcerated right now. Not creating worse ones who are more likely to re-enter an already crowded and broken system by refusing them educations they may not have completed or gotten even to a high school level before being imprisoned. And certainly not by routinely using torture devices like solitary confinement as long-term housing solutions or disciplinary solutions.

 

 

 

You have data to support this?

 

 

 

You're back to accepting solitary confinement as an acceptable form of punishment. It's not. It's not even a form of punishment. It's a form of torture that even the U.N. has urged the U.S. to stop using, because the data they collected on it found that it drove people crazy, which only made them more prone to bouts of anger and rage that would in turn only extend their solitary stints.

 

Again, did you actually read the io9 article I posted before?

 

The logic for this is really simple:

 

1A. Isolating criminals from society and the every day rights we get as free members of it is punishment.

1B. Solitary confinement is torture (scientifically proven fact).

 

2. Torture is not equal to punishment. It's equal to revenge and crime. If you torture someone outside the walls of a a prison, for example, you've committed a crime for which you should be put behind the walls of a prison, regardless of why you did so, or who you did so to.

 

3. Torture causes harmful effects that lead to crime (increased levels of violence).

 

4. Many of the prisoners behind bars today will be free within their lifetime

 

5A. Those being released who were tortured are more likely to commit crime again because of that torture and the effect it has on their mental state.

5B. Those being released who were not tortured, but punished, are less likely to commit crime again. Especially those who have access to educational programs within the prison system designed to make them better citizens upon their release.

 

And if you want to get into the economic factor of all of this...

 

6. More crime equates to more tax money (the kind you want to see used to make college free for everyone) being used for building more bars, more guards, more prisons, which operate using the torture of solitary, which brings this all full circle.

 

So then what is the solution to inmates who act up and stabb or rape other inmates? What about the gangs who jump each other and seriously injure a different gang memeber in the prison? How do you punish them?

 

I know that not every prisoner is in for life, but I also know that anlot of these guys and girls come out and do the same thing, sometimes worse, when they get out. I have dealt with numerous cases where a gun is recovered from a guy, and its his 3rd gun charge, second in a year. Unlesz uou can get guys out of that gang mentality and move them to a completely different location, odds are that these guys gonright back to runnjng with their crews.

 

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the use of solitary confinement. I dont have an issue with it, and thats not because I am a cop, its because I know what its like to have a family memeber and a friend that were both murdered, one is a cold case, the other the person was caught.

Also, the educational programs built into prisons aren't college educations. They are GED and basic level classes for people who have little to no education in the first place. There are college courses that are available to some prisoners, but those are not free, and they are correspondence courses:

 

 

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/08/22/report-prison-education-programs-could-save-money

 

You can also get a degree while in prison. There are prisoners who get law degrees while in prison.

So then what is the solution to inmates who act up and stabb or rape other inmates? What about the gangs who jump each other and seriously injure a different gang memeber in the prison? How do you punish them?

 

Treatment. Programs. Education. The promotion of positive change. Address the actual underlying causes of problematic behavior.

 

You can still isolate and remove violent and problematic inmates from an otherwise peaceful general population without having to throw them into a hole and throw away the key, or torture them, as if that's actually a solution to deterring them from the behavior that landed them there in the first place.

 

Throwing someone who stabs another inmate in a fit of rage into a hole for six years isn't going to change that person for the positive. It's going to make them worse. Which in turn increases the likelihood they'll violently attack others in the event they're ever released, and the longer you keep them and don't release them, the worse their mental and physical state will get.

 

Not having a perfect alternative off the top of my head (considering I don't work in Corrections) doesn't mean solitary confinement is a good thing, or an effective tool for use in prisons. All the data indicates the exact opposite.

 

I know that not every prisoner is in for life, but I also know that anlot of these guys and girls come out and do the same thing, sometimes worse, when they get out. I have dealt with numerous cases where a gun is recovered from a guy, and its his 3rd gun charge, second in a year. Unlesz uou can get guys out of that gang mentality and move them to a completely different location, odds are that these guys gonright back to runnjng with their crews.

 

I never suggested otherwise. I'm aware that recidivism exists. I'm also aware that education reduces it.

 

You know what doesn't? Excessive reliance on solitary confinement. Torture. Additional abuse. Treating human beings like trash, regardless of why they are in prison to begin with.

 

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the use of solitary confinement. I dont have an issue with it, and thats not because I am a cop, its because I know what its like to have a family memeber and a friend that were both murdered, one is a cold case, the other the person was caught.

 

Right, because as you said earlier, you believe prison exists as punishment, and that solitary confinement is a form of punishment. The problem is that what you believe is wrong. It's not a form of punishment. It's a form of torture. This is supported by scientific data and the opinions of those working in mental health, especially prison psychologists and neurologists.

 

But even beyond the torture aspect, the fact of the matter is it does not deter violent crime in prisons, which proves it's not an effective form of punishment, and it actually costs State's and prisons more per year due to the recidivism it causes among inmates who are released, only to relapse and come right back to prison. Something that can actually be remedied with education, as the USNews.com link above proves.

Treatment. Programs. Education. The promotion of positive change. Address the actual underlying causes of problematic behavior.

 

You can still isolate and remove violent and problematic inmates from an otherwise peaceful general population without having to throw them into a hole and throw away the key, or torture them, as if that's actually a solution to deterring them from the behavior that landed them there in the first place.

 

Throwing someone who stabs another inmate in a fit of rage into a hole for six years isn't going to change that person for the positive. It's going to make them worse. Which in turn increases the likelihood they'll violently attack others in the event they're ever released, and the longer you keep them and don't release them, the worse their mental and physical state will get.

 

Not having a perfect alternative off the top of my head (considering I don't work in Corrections) doesn't mean solitary confinement is a good thing, or an effective tool for use in prisons. All the data indicates the exact opposite.

 

 

 

I never suggested otherwise. I'm aware that recidivism exists. I'm also aware that education reduces it.

 

You know what doesn't? Excessive reliance on solitary confinement. Torture. Additional abuse. Treating human beings like trash, regardless of why they are in prison to begin with.

 

 

 

Right, because as you said earlier, you believe prison exists as punishment, and that solitary confinement is a form of punishment. The problem is that what you believe is wrong. It's not a form of punishment. It's a form of torture. This is supported by scientific data and the opinions of those working in mental health, especially prison psychologists and neurologists.

 

But even beyond the torture aspect, the fact of the matter is it does not deter violent crime in prisons, which proves it's not an effective form of punishment, and it actually costs State's and prisons more per year due to the recidivism it causes among inmates who are released, only to relapse and come right back to prison. Something that can actually be remedied with education, as the USNews.com link above proves.

 

You have plenty of prisoners who aren't put in solitary that are recidivists. Treatments, programs and education while locked up may work for some prisoners, but your career violent gang bangers, IMO its not going to work with. Those are the ones who are recidivists, not the junkie who needs help getting clean and wants to get clean. You can't change some people, and coddling to them isn't going to work. Once these guys get out, most go right back to the behavior prior to going in.

 

Again, I don't believe in giving guys who are in jail for a crime they chose to commit, anything to make their time fun. No TV, make them read. And for me, if you murder someone, molest a child, rape someone, you shouldn't be around other people. If they act up in prison, and stab or kill another inmate because they looked at them wrong, they obviously have mental issues to begin with. I side more with the victims and their families because a lot of times, they have to either live with what happened to them and are fucked up for the rest of their lives, or their families never get that chance to say good bye or see them again, so how is it fair that the person who did that to them gets to enjoy life if these people can't? You can't tell me my opinion of how someone should be treated is wrong, because if thats the case, we would never have any discussions. Im not stating my opinion as a fact here, and I don't buy an article 100% that talks to people who are in the profession of owning a company that works to educate prisoners. It may work with the lower level crimes, but a lot of the serious crimes, IMO, it won't work with.

 

I also never said I was against inmates getting an education, I said they shouldn't get a free education. Force them to fit the bill. Whether its a GED or trade degree, the non-crime committing person still has to pay for it, so can they.

You have plenty of prisoners who aren't put in solitary that are recidivists. Treatments, programs and education while locked up may work for some prisoners, but your career violent gang bangers, IMO its not going to work with. Those are the ones who are recidivists, not the junkie who needs help getting clean and wants to get clean. You can't change some people, and coddling to them isn't going to work. Once these guys get out, most go right back to the behavior prior to going in.

 

Again, I don't believe in giving guys who are in jail for a crime they chose to commit, anything to make their time fun. No TV, make them read. And for me, if you murder someone, molest a child, rape someone, you shouldn't be around other people. If they act up in prison, and stab or kill another inmate because they looked at them wrong, they obviously have mental issues to begin with. I side more with the victims and their families because a lot of times, they have to either live with what happened to them and are fucked up for the rest of their lives, or their families never get that chance to say good bye or see them again, so how is it fair that the person who did that to them gets to enjoy life if these people can't? You can't tell me my opinion of how someone should be treated is wrong, because if thats the case, we would never have any discussions. Im not stating my opinion as a fact here, and I don't buy an article 100% that talks to people who are in the profession of owning a company that works to educate prisoners. It may work with the lower level crimes, but a lot of the serious crimes, IMO, it won't work with.

 

Of course I can tell you your opinion is wrong. Opinions are wrong all the time, especially the more they are based on facts. The fact of the matter is, solitary confinement does not deter violence in prisons, and makes prisoners worse people and inmates. All facts. You saying "it's my opinion it works" or "it's my opinion that's not true" doesn't matter. It's like when people say "it's my opinion evolution doesn't exist" or "it's my opinion there are no baseball bats". We're dealing in fact at the moment, which is why I've been trying to get you to accept that your argument is based on not caring about inmates, not on the facts around solitary confinement actually working, because it doesn't. It has an adverse affect that actually backfires on it's intent. I understand your sympathy/empathy for the victims and their families, but at the end of the day if you don't care about prisoners, you don't care. I think you should, considering the vast majority are non-violent offenders, but I can't force you to.

 

For the record, I don't not feel for the victims or their families. Inferring I don't is disingenuous. I just understand and appreciate that prisoners are still people with human rights, the vast number of whom are non-violent offenders, so your appeal to emotion isn't exactly statistically supported.

 

I also never said I was against inmates getting an education, I said they shouldn't get a free education. Force them to fit the bill. Whether its a GED or trade degree, the non-crime committing person still has to pay for it, so can they.

 

You didn't pay for your high school education. You paid for your college education. Something not offered to inmates for free. We're back to the false dichotomy again. What they're being offered is a GED, which is a high school equivalency course — something you, and everyone else, get for free.

 

But here, let's try it this way... do you accept the data I posted earlier that indicates correctional education programs reduce rates of recidivism by more than 40% and increase by nearly 15% the chances of ex-cons securing employment upon release? The same data that also indicates that prisons actually save money every year by offering educational courses, specifically to inmates whose terms will see them released before they are likely to die?

 

Because if you do, I can't see how or why you would seek to limit the educational opportunities within them, specifically for non-violent offenders. I'm talking about the 48.6% of the prison population of the U.S. in on drug charges. I mean, you understand that according to recent BOP data, the average percentage of violent offenses amounts to just 2.9% of the entire population, right? If you account for weapons, explosives and arson, you can add another 16.2%, and 7.1% for sex offenses. So we’re talking about a total of 26.2%. Using this math, nearly 75% of the incarcerated inmates in the U.S. are in on non-violent offenses. Predominantly on drug charges.

 

You don't think these people, most of whom will be released back into the public within their life time, would benefit from basic education courses, when all the data proves otherwise?

Of course I can tell you your opinion is wrong. Opinions are wrong all the time, especially the more they are based on facts. The fact of the matter is, solitary confinement does not deter violence in prisons, and makes prisoners worse people and inmates. All facts. You saying "it's my opinion it works" or "it's my opinion that's not true" doesn't matter. It's like when people say "it's my opinion evolution doesn't exist" or "it's my opinion there are no baseball bats". We're dealing in fact at the moment, which is why I've been trying to get you to accept that your argument is based on not caring about inmates, not on the facts around solitary confinement actually working, because it doesn't. It has an adverse affect that actually backfires on it's intent. I understand your sympathy/empathy for the victims and their families, but at the end of the day if you don't care about prisoners, you don't care. I think you should, considering the vast majority are non-violent offenders, but I can't force you to.

 

For the record, I don't not feel for the victims or their families. Inferring I don't is disingenuous. I just understand and appreciate that prisoners are still people with human rights, the vast number of whom are non-violent offenders, so your appeal to emotion isn't exactly statistically supported.

 

 

 

You didn't pay for your high school education. You paid for your college education. Something not offered to inmates for free. We're back to the false dichotomy again. What they're being offered is a GED, which is a high school equivalency course — something you, and everyone else, get for free.

 

But here, let's try it this way... do you accept the data I posted earlier that indicates correctional education programs reduce rates of recidivism by more than 40% and increase by nearly 15% the chances of ex-cons securing employment upon release? The same data that also indicates that prisons actually save money every year by offering educational courses, specifically to inmates whose terms will see them released before they are likely to die?

 

Because if you do, I can't see how or why you would seek to limit the educational opportunities within them, specifically for non-violent offenders. I'm talking about the 48.6% of the prison population of the U.S. in on drug charges. I mean, you understand that according to recent BOP data, the average percentage of violent offenses amounts to just 2.9% of the entire population, right? If you account for weapons, explosives and arson, you can add another 16.2%, and 7.1% for sex offenses. So we’re talking about a total of 26.2%. Using this math, nearly 75% of the incarcerated inmates in the U.S. are in on non-violent offenses. Predominantly on drug charges.

 

You don't think these people, most of whom will be released back into the public within their life time, would benefit from basic education courses, when all the data proves otherwise?

 

The article you posted leaves a lot to be answered. Where was the study taken from, what type of prisoners were they, how long were they locked up? Its a study, not a 100% fact. Its a story based off the company that runs it. What company is going to say what we do doesn't work? There are too many questions to be answered.

 

Your also wrong about GED's being free. You have to pay for them. Your high school isn't free either, its paid for in the taxes your parents paid. Again, I never said that their shouldn't be education or programs, I said they shouldn't be funded by tax payers when those that are law abiding citizens can't get a free education. There are also prison programs where prisoners get tech degrees and can get law degrees, and some prisons do offer college courses. A person doing 15 years or more, an education isn't going to help them as much as a person that is doing 5 years. Also, age is a huge factor, what is an education going to do for a guy that is in his late 40's? Its easy to say that education will keep people from coming back to prison, but there are other factors that need to be looked at.

 

And the BOP site you posted is based only on Federal Prisons, not state prisons, they are totally different. The federal drug charges are most likely drug trafficking, different from the state level drug charges, which are your simple dealers.

The article you posted leaves a lot to be answered. Where was the study taken from, what type of prisoners were they, how long were they locked up? Its a study, not a 100% fact. Its a story based off the company that runs it. What company is going to say what we do doesn't work? There are too many questions to be answered.

 

https://www.bja.gov/Publications/RAND_Correctional-Education-Meta-Analysis.pdf

 

The RAND Corporation is a non-profit who provide objective analysis that is subjected to peer review. What's the question?

 

Your also wrong about GED's being free. You have to pay for them. Your high school isn't free either, its paid for in the taxes your parents paid. Again, I never said that their shouldn't be education or programs, I said they shouldn't be funded by tax payers when those that are law abiding citizens can't get a free education. There are also prison programs where prisoners get tech degrees and can get law degrees, and some prisons do offer college courses. A person doing 15 years or more, an education isn't going to help them as much as a person that is doing 5 years. Also, age is a huge factor, what is an education going to do for a guy that is in his late 40's? Its easy to say that education will keep people from coming back to prison, but there are other factors that need to be looked at.

 

I didn't say GED's are free. I said high school is free. Because it is. It's a social program that's paid for by everyone through their taxes. You pay nothing out of pocket. You don't have a "tuition" to foot a bill for.

 

I'm not going through this false dichotomy a third time. It's entirely possible that prison programs (currently privately owned and operated) can maintain positive behavioral educational courses to reduce recidivism and better equip inmates who will be released for life after release and that advanced education can function in the same manner as K-12 does.

 

And I'm well aware that there are a million factors to be addressed. Age, ethnicity, reason for incarceration, etc. These are things the prisons themselves would need to look at to determine who is best suited for these courses and who isn't. It doesn't affect or change the fact that the courses themselves produce positive results that reduce recidivism and better equip soon-to-be-released inmates for life after release.

 

And the BOP site you posted is based only on Federal Prisons, not state prisons, they are totally different. The federal drug charges are most likely drug trafficking, different from the state level drug charges, which are your simple dealers.

 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf

 

OK, so 54% as of 2012 for violent crime. That still leaves nearly half the State prison population in on non-violent offenses. They aren't better served with educational opportunities considering they are almost certainly being released within a reasonable time frame of their incarceration?

The RAND Corporation is a non-profit who provide objective analysis that is subjected to peer review. What's the question?

 

How old were those that took the program? How long were they incarcerated for? What were they convicted of? ow many times have they been arrested? What was their sentence? The prisoners educational background? These are all important factors when saying how effective the program is.

 

I didn't say GED's are free. I said high school is free. Because it is. It's a social program that's paid for by everyone through their taxes. You pay nothing out of pocket. You don't have a "tuition" to foot a bill for.

 

This is what you said:

You didn't pay for your high school education. You paid for your college education. Something not offered to inmates for free. We're back to the false dichotomy again. What they're being offered is a GED, which is a high school equivalency course — something you, and everyone else, get for free.

Again, that simply is not true, you have to pay to get your GED because your over the school age.

 

I'm not going through this false dichotomy a third time. It's entirely possible that prison programs (currently privately owned and operated) can maintain positive behavioral educational courses to reduce recidivism and better equip inmates who will be released for life after release and that advanced education can function in the same manner as K-12 does.

 

And I'm well aware that there are a million factors to be addressed. Age, ethnicity, reason for incarceration, etc. These are things the prisons themselves would need to look at to determine who is best suited for these courses and who isn't. It doesn't affect or change the fact that the courses themselves produce positive results that reduce recidivism and better equip soon-to-be-released inmates for life after release.

 

Now your changing what you said. You said its possible now, which I never denied. You were conveying that its fact that it works. Again though, these are programs that shouldn't be paid with tax payer money, the bill should be fitted by the prisoner, not the tax payer. You also can't say that these courses work, but we are only going to use those we think it will work for, and thats the answer to reforming prisoners. You need to use the entire prison population and determine from there whether the program works, you can't be selective, thats a false positive. You need more than simple programs and education to reform prisoners. And Ive said earlier, not all former prisoners go back to prison, but there are more that do. There are some great success stories out there, but there are more that aren't.

 

OK, so 54% as of 2012 for violent crime. That still leaves nearly half the State prison population in on non-violent offenses. They aren't better served with educational opportunities considering they are almost certainly being released within a reasonable time frame of their incarceration?

 

54% is still a huge difference over 26%. And Non-violent crimes include burglary, larcenies, identity theft, gun possession, selling guns and drugs, and then your lower level or white collar crimes. Again, you don't know what their educational background is. You can have guys like Bernie Madoff who was a CEO all the way down to your local crack head. The other thing is, the median age for those locked up is 30-34, so if a 33 year old is doing say 5 years, how much will an education help him when getting out of prison?

How old were those that took the program? How long were they incarcerated for? What were they convicted of? ow many times have they been arrested? What was their sentence? The prisoners educational background? These are all important factors when saying how effective the program is.

 

I linked you to the actual report PDF. I don’t have time to fine tooth comb it to find this information for you. But I’d imagine it’s included in the PDF.

 

This is what you said:

 

Again, that simply is not true, you have to pay to get your GED because your over the school age.

 

I misspoke. I meant that a GED is the equivalence of a high school degree, and that high school degrees don’t cost you out of pocket. They’re awarded to those who graduate high school, which is paid for through all our taxes as part of a social program/requirement.

 

Now your changing what you said. You said its possible now, which I never denied. You were conveying that its fact that it works. Again though, these are programs that shouldn't be paid with tax payer money, the bill should be fitted by the prisoner, not the tax payer. You also can't say that these courses work, but we are only going to use those we think it will work for, and thats the answer to reforming prisoners. You need to use the entire prison population and determine from there whether the program works, you can't be selective, thats a false positive. You need more than simple programs and education to reform prisoners. And Ive said earlier, not all former prisoners go back to prison, but there are more that do. There are some great success stories out there, but there are more that aren’t.

 

Here’s the way I see it… why shouldn’t they be paid for with tax payer money? Your tax money is already going to housing inmates in prisons. So why would you want to pay more when criminals return to prison when you can pay less by offering these courses, which the study indicates reduces recidivism by 43%? This makes no sense to me. I get if you question the findings of the study, fine, but if the numbers it’s indicating are true (and I have no reason to disbelieve a peer reviewed RAND study), it’s pretty clear that educational programs are of economic (tax) benefit.

 

54% is still a huge difference over 26%. And Non-violent crimes include burglary, larcenies, identity theft, gun possession, selling guns and drugs, and then your lower level or white collar crimes. Again, you don't know what their educational background is. You can have guys like Bernie Madoff who was a CEO all the way down to your local crack head. The other thing is, the median age for those locked up is 30-34, so if a 33 year old is doing say 5 years, how much will an education help him when getting out of prison?

 

I don’t have the data on the total percentage of violent crime versus non-violent crime. I’ll search for that in a bit and come back to the thread with it if I can find it.

I linked you to the actual report PDF. I don’t have time to fine tooth comb it to find this information for you. But I’d imagine it’s included in the PDF.

 

 

 

I misspoke. I meant that a GED is the equivalence of a high school degree, and that high school degrees don’t cost you out of pocket. They’re awarded to those who graduate high school, which is paid for through all our taxes as part of a social program/requirement.

 

 

 

Here’s the way I see it… why shouldn’t they be paid for with tax payer money? Your tax money is already going to housing inmates in prisons. So why would you want to pay more when criminals return to prison when you can pay less by offering these courses, which the study indicates reduces recidivism by 43%? This makes no sense to me. I get if you question the findings of the study, fine, but if the numbers it’s indicating are true (and I have no reason to disbelieve a peer reviewed RAND study), it’s pretty clear that educational programs are of economic (tax) benefit.

 

 

I don’t have the data on the total percentage of violent crime versus non-violent crime. I’ll search for that in a bit and come back to the thread with it if I can find it.

 

I have a problem with a lot of the tax payer money that is spent on prisons. This is why I feel the way I do about them. I hate the way our government spends money on garbage and not helping the citizens who are paying most of the taxes, but thats for a different thread. There is too much waste in the prisons, too much money spent on things not needed there, and there are a lot of prisoners who play the game and know how to make out using the system and abuse it as well.

I think it's impossible to group all prisons and prisoners into one bucket.

 

Some are prisoners can be rehabilitated in a facility. Some are lost causes and have lost their right to participate in society, and are relegated to a penal facility.

 

One of those places is punitive and rightfully so. What happens to those people, I don't give a shit.

 

The other facilities need to be fixed.

I doubt you'd find many batting an eye at the fate of convicted child molesters or rapists or remorseless murderers. But even among those who are in on violent offenses, not all are remorseless. Some learn inside to help others not facing life sentences. Part of the Scared Straight program, for example, is to use lifers without the possibility of parole to show juveniles at risk that it's not worth throwing your life away for whatever it is they are doing — gang-banging, selling drugs, whatever. Many of whom were convicted on murder charges themselves, for example.