Where is 1% of the American adult population?

[Crusader]

I thought this is food for thought. Especially the question 'is this slavery?'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMFd0zDAW0

[Nystul]

I thought this is food for thought. Especially the question 'is this slavery?'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMFd0zDAW0

The "slavery" bit is a shallow understanding of the situation. People who are convicted of crimes are deprived of certain liberties in order to protect the general population. If we are to overlook that idea, we could just as well say they are being kidnapped and held hostage, or that people who are executed are being murdered (actually a lot of people do say that). But any way you look at it, it costs us a lot of money to keep them off the streets. The average cost for a state to hold a prisoner for a year is somewhere in the $25,000 to $100,000 range. For that money you can hire full time a skilled tradesman or a middle manager. These work programs only recoup a small portion of the expenses.

People in this country want to feel safe. The last thing a politician can afford is to be labeled soft on crime. So, for better or worse, we put a lot of criminals in jail for a long time. But it's also a symptom of a lot of problems we have with urban communities in general. Some sentencing guidelines may be ridiculous, but to really fix the "problem" would require fixing a whole lot of other problems first.

[eppie]

I thought this is food for thought. Especially the question 'is this slavery?'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMFd0zDAW0

25 years in prison after stealing 9 videotapes. Suddenly, having your hand chopped off doesn't seem to far over the top anymore.

[Lissa]

I thought this is food for thought. Especially the question 'is this slavery?'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMFd0zDAW0

25 years in prison after stealing 9 videotapes. Suddenly, having your hand chopped off doesn't seem to far over the top anymore.

Yes, but what were their 2 prior felonies? The three strikes law goes into effect when you've commited two felonies, felonies aren't minor offenses. The three strikes law is also meant for career criminals as well. If you can't be rehabilitated after two felonies, why should we, the law abiding citizens of the US, keep allowing you to come out and commit further offenses?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Especially the question 'is this slavery?'

No. These are people who have been incarcerated either because of a trial or a plea bargain. Whether the laws they broke are just or the sentence they received is appropriate is an entirely different question. The fact remains that they are legally incarcerated for offenses against society. While they are incarcerated, society supplies their needs. There is nothing wrong (and a lot of good) in demanding that they contribute to the cost of that support. Indeed, the value of their output comes nowhere near to covering all of their cost, much less making a profit.

From another perspective, it is well and long known that a number of people who are confined to a small area with nothing to do will become a problem. That is why sailors on warships have throughout history swabbed decks, tarred and painted all surfaces, improved the rigging with fancy rope work, and drilled on every conceivable situation. Similarly, in the army people cut grass that hasn't had a chance to grow, paint rocks, barracks, and most anything that doesn't move, and spend hours a day perfecting their shoe shine and brass polish.

The same is true, even more so, for convicts. Modern stupidity considers forcing these people to work to be some infringement on their rights. If these people were not in jail and not criminals, doesn't their need for food, etc., force them to work? Is locking criminals up and then leaving them alone with nothing to do but pump iron and get tattoos a smart thing to do? Does it help in rehabilitation, or does it increase the deterrence value of prison?

25 years in prison after stealing 9 videotapes. Suddenly, having your hand chopped off doesn't seem to far over the top anymore.

Right. Because, of course, you know all the details of this case and this person. Clearly, he is a good boy, straight A student, a deacon in his church and in the choir, and always respectful to his parents. Stealing those tapes was just a youthful indiscretion. Or, maybe he's a gang-banger suspected in dozens of violent crimes, and the cops have been trying to get him off the streets for years. Remember, with all the crimes Al Capone was responsible for, the only thing they got him for was tax evasion. You think they gave him a stiff sentence and shipped him off to Alcatraz because he owed the US government a few bucks? Sometimes, you just got to do the best with what you've got.

Now, the jail situation in the US is disgraceful. To a large part, that is because of our ignorant official attitude towards drugs. Not only is the manufacture, distribution, and use of drugs illegal, but the artificially high price of drugs maintained because of their illegality leads to prostitution, robbery, theft, etc. That is not the fault of the cops, the judges, or the penal system. It is the fault of that damned puritanical hypocrisy practiced by the bulk of Americans. But that is another rant.

--Pete

[Taelas]

Hi,

Especially the question 'is this slavery?'

No. These are people who have been incarcerated either because of a trial or a plea bargain. Whether the laws they broke are just or the sentence they received is appropriate is an entirely different question. The fact remains that they are legally incarcerated for offenses against society. While they are incarcerated, society supplies their needs. There is nothing wrong (and a lot of good) in demanding that they contribute to the cost of that support. Indeed, the value of their output comes nowhere near to covering all of their cost, much less making a profit.

Whether or not they were legally incarcerated isn't the point; slavery was legal once. It was used as punishment for criminal activities. Slaves were fed and clothed by their owners.

There is a LOT of corollary, and I do not think the question can be dismissed out of hand.

The same is true, even more so, for convicts. Modern stupidity considers forcing these people to work to be some infringement on their rights. If these people were not in jail and not criminals, doesn't their need for food, etc., force them to work? Is locking criminals up and then leaving them alone with nothing to do but pump iron and get tattoos a smart thing to do? Does it help in rehabilitation, or does it increase the deterrence value of prison?

They would not be forced to work if they were free, no -- not any more forced than the next man.

I agree that locking them up without giving them something to do is not a good idea, but I don't see forcing them to work on producing goods for the military as any better.

If it isn't slave labor, it's the next thing to it.

[kandrathe]

Yes, but what were their 2 prior felonies? The three strikes law goes into effect when you've commited two felonies, felonies aren't minor offenses. The three strikes law is also meant for career criminals as well. If you can't be rehabilitated after two felonies, why should we, the law abiding citizens of the US, keep allowing you to come out and commit further offenses?

"he had been convicted of petty theft, residential burglary, transportation of marijuana, and escape from prison." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockyer_v._Andrade

I disagree with laws, such as this three strikes law, or mandatory minimums which remove imposition of appropriate sentences from the Judicial process. Some notorious cases where given lenient sentences, so like many other laws, we create edicts to control peoples behavior, and in this case judicial discretion. Rather than reform the judiciary, we tie up their hands.

It may be disingenuous to imply, and does the video, that the majority of prisoners are there due to unjust sentences. And, similarly, it may be inaccurate to draw inferences of racial discrimination from the prison populations demographics. The discrimination in the system is in that there are still two Americas. One for urban poor neighborhoods (hoods), and the America that the rest of us experience. Children in the hood are born into one parent homes to mothers with parenting issues, given less parental supervision, and often join gangs before getting to high school age. There is a manifold increase in drug abuse, violence, criminal activity and arrests in the hood. The systems of justice are expedited to manage the increased volume, thus each case gets less attention and the defense attorneys are usually pro-bono, or supplied by the system. The end result is that the hood tends to be place where our children graduate into the prison system. It's almost become a cultural expectation. The injustice exists in that we allow there to be two America's in the first place.

[--Pete]

Hi,

They would not be forced to work if they were free, no -- not any more forced than the next man.

OK, fine. Have it your way. They aren't forced to work. But they have to pay for their own food, their own clothes, their own shelter, their own health care. If they don't, they can starve, they can go naked, they can sleep on the ground of the exercise yard, they can die of minor illnesses. Just as if they weren't in jail. Of course, anyone with half a brain would be able to see that.

--Pete

[Lissa]

Yes, but what were their 2 prior felonies? The three strikes law goes into effect when you've commited two felonies, felonies aren't minor offenses. The three strikes law is also meant for career criminals as well. If you can't be rehabilitated after two felonies, why should we, the law abiding citizens of the US, keep allowing you to come out and commit further offenses?

"he had been convicted of petty theft, residential burglary, transportation of marijuana, and escape from prison." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockyer_v._Andrade

I disagree with laws, such as this three strikes law, or mandatory minimums which remove imposition of appropriate sentences from the Judicial process. Some notorious cases where given lenient sentences, so like many other laws, we create edicts to control peoples behavior, and in this case judicial discretion. Rather than reform the judiciary, we tie up their hands.

Yes, and if you had read that wiki article, you would see that he had been in and out of jail for almost 2 decades when the 3 strikes law was instituted on him. He was a career criminal and had not been rehabilitated in the almost two decades he'd been in and out of jail. He'd been given plenty of chances to rehabilitate, he choose not to.

[kandrathe]

Yes, and if you had read that wiki article, you would see that he had been in and out of jail for almost 2 decades when the 3 strikes law was instituted on him. He was a career criminal and had not been rehabilitated in the almost two decades he'd been in and out of jail. He'd been given plenty of chances to rehabilitate, he choose not to.

I did read it. But, I'm under the assumption that if you are released from prison, you've paid your debt to society. His recent crimes were shoplifting videos, and in my opinion, didn't warrant a 25 year prison sentence. Many murderers serve less time.

"California charged respondent Andrade with two felony counts of petty theft with a prior conviction after he stole approximately $150 worth of videotapes from two different stores." -- From the Supreme court brief

So, these are two petty misdemeanors, but the prosecution took the opportunity to bring back his prior felony convictions for application of the three strikes law which had been passed after the prior felonies were served. So, for his mistake of stealing $150 worth of Videos, his past was used against him.

If you are looking at it from the "correctional" point of view, the prior time he spent getting "corrected" didn't really help, based on his recidivism. Perhaps, another form of intervention is required.

The only way I can interpret this law, is that they don't care what you've done to commit the felony, at some point the society is tired of trying and so they want to dispose of the human garbage. The prisons have become human garbage dumps.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I disagree with laws, such as this three strikes law, or mandatory minimums which remove imposition of appropriate sentences from the Judicial process.

Yes. And no. A large part of the problem with the judicial process is that it is run by people. The law should be equal. Two persons with similar background and history each of which is accused, tried, and convicted of the same crime should receive equivalent punishment. That has been far from the case.

The judicial system needs to be overhauled. The requirements for being a judge need to be tightened. Judges need to be constantly evaluated on the basis of the results of appeals of their cases. The average person has never been capable of thinking logically. Add to that the increasing use of science and probability in testimony, and understanding the evidence and arguments is even further out of the capability of most people. We need to establish a position of professional juror, with appropriate requirements in law, science, logic, etc. And, finally (or maybe first), we need to go to a judicial system where the objectives are truth and justice and away from the legal system where all that matters is the cleverness of the lawyers and of their arguments.

A large part of the laws restricting the authority of the judges came about because a large number of judges showed they did not have the ability to handle that authority. I want to give judges that authority back, but not until we replace the incompetent ones.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I disagree with laws, such as this three strikes law, or mandatory minimums which remove imposition of appropriate sentences from the Judicial process.

Yes. And no. A large part of the problem with the judicial process is that it is run by people. The law should be equal. Two persons with similar background and history each of which is accused, tried, and convicted of the same crime should receive equivalent punishment. That has been far from the case.

The judicial system needs to be overhauled. The requirements for being a judge need to be tightened. Judges need to be constantly evaluated on the basis of the results of appeals of their cases. The average person has never been capable of thinking logically. Add to that the increasing use of science and probability in testimony, and understanding the evidence and arguments is even further out of the capability of most people. We need to establish a position of professional juror, with appropriate requirements in law, science, logic, etc. And, finally (or maybe first), we need to go to a judicial system where the objectives are truth and justice and away from the legal system where all that matters is the cleverness of the lawyers and of their arguments.

A large part of the laws restricting the authority of the judges came about because a large number of judges showed they did not have the ability to handle that authority. I want to give judges that authority back, but not until we replace the incompetent ones.

I could live with that. I agree with the need for sentencing guidelines, but I think there should be allowances for special circumstances. Perhaps, an judicial panel that reviews the application of allowable special circumstances for trials where they exist (e.g. sentenced for 5 years, 3 years stayed for aiding the prosecution).

I wish there was something we could do with overreaching prosecutions too.

[Taelas]

Hi,

They would not be forced to work if they were free, no -- not any more forced than the next man.

OK, fine. Have it your way. They aren't forced to work. But they have to pay for their own food, their own clothes, their own shelter, their own health care. If they don't, they can starve, they can go naked, they can sleep on the ground of the exercise yard, they can die of minor illnesses. Just as if they weren't in jail. Of course, anyone with half a brain would be able to see that.

--Pete

That's not how society today works.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I did read it. But, I'm under the assumption that if you are released from prison, you've paid your debt to society.

I've heard that expression all my life. What the hell does it mean? In what sense of the word 'debt' does it make sense? If I borrow money or some object from you, I am in your debt. When I repay or return what I've borrowed, I've paid my debt to you. If you help me pour my driveway, I'm in your debt. When I help you replace your roof, I've repaid my debt to you. Now, just what is a "debt to society"? And how did he pay it off by being incarcerated as a punishment?

Sloppy terminology leads to sloppy thinking.

His recent crimes were shoplifting videos, and in my opinion, didn't warrant a 25 year prison sentence.

His prior bad acts cannot be used as evidence against him for the purpose of determining his guilt except in some specific cases (such as establishing a pattern of behavior). They can and are used to determine an appropriate sentence. He was not sentenced to 25 years in prison for shoplifting videos. He was sentence because shoplifting videos was the latest in a series of crimes going back two decades. He's not being incarcerated so much for punishment, or even rehabilitation, as he is for the protection of society. He has rejected society by his actions. He is a threat and danger to society. So, society has every right to separate him from itself.

Many murderers serve less time.

So what? This is the argument of a grade school child. "Johnny did it more than I did."

If you are looking at it from the "correctional" point of view, the prior time he spent getting "corrected" didn't really help, based on his recidivism. Perhaps, another form of intervention is required.

Again, sloppy thinking based on sloppy terminology. Correctional facilities? Give me a break. They are jails or prisons. The whole rehabilitation thing is pie-in-the-sky nonsense. It was tried. It failed. People who end up in jail because they made a mistake usually stay clean. People who decide they want to change, change.

The only way I can interpret this law, is that they don't care what you've done to commit the felony, at some point the society is tired of trying and so they want to dispose of the human garbage. The prisons have become human garbage dumps.

Yeah. Because doing something useful with those habitual criminals is frowned upon. Feeding the poor starving Great Whites along the Great Barrier Reef or using them to enrich the soil of played out land is considered poor form by many liberals (and both rational conservatives). Personally, since we can't just kill them, I would like to see a penal colony in Antarctica. But that might not be fair to the penguins.

--Pete

---

Hi,

That's not how society today works.

"'Tis true, 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true."

--Pete

[eppie]

25 years in prison after stealing 9 videotapes. Suddenly, having your hand chopped off doesn't seem to far over the top anymore.

Right. Because, of course, you know all the details of this case and this person. Clearly, he is a good boy, straight A student, a deacon in his church and in the choir, and always respectful to his parents. Stealing those tapes was just a youthful indiscretion.
--Pete

Of course he wasn't, but probably the guy who's hand got chopped of also wasn't a straight a student. Anyway, that is not the point of the discussion here.

The question is if it is true that long and many prison punishments are there to obtain a lot of cheap labour. And this is an argument I personally had actually never heard off. So instead of prison costing loads of tax payers money (like e.g. it does in Holland) the US actually makes money from it. Giving the state a extra motive to keep punishments long, and put people in jail for e.g. having small quantities of drugs with them.

I find this an interesting discussion.

Because as Lissa said earlier, it is political suicide to be lenient on crime. But if the costs would be just to bloody high the republicans would play their 'no government interference card' and vote for less prisoners to save some money.

[Lissa]

What people are totally glossing over, with the exception of Jester and Pete, it costs money to house these prisoners. If these people were not incarcerated, they would have to work for a living to feed, cloth, and shelter themselves legitimately. Why should they get all these things for free because they broke society's laws? What most here don't understand is that inside a prison, prisoners can buy goods and they are paid for their work (miniscule as it is, but they are) and they also pay for luxury goods, like cigarettes, at far reduced rates (a pack of cigarettes in prison will cost about a $1 to $2 depending where as a pack of cigarettes outside of prison can run you close to $5 to $7 per pack, if not more).

And prisoners in the US are not treated terribly unlike other prisoners like in China or Iran, in some cases, the prisoners get a better life behind bars than if they were out on the streets in some US cities. There are some people in the US that think we're too lienient on prisoners.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The question is if it is true that long and many prison punishments are there to obtain a lot of cheap labour.

Actually, that is nonsense. The reality is that some privately run prisons do operate at a profit, but only because they are subsidized by the government. The government pays the corporation that owns the prison a certain amount (usually less than it would cost the government directly) to keep the prisoners. The corporation then uses those prisoners to generate some income. Overall, it hasn't been too successful.

Since the sentences are passed by judges representing the state and since the state ends up paying at least part of the costs of the incarceration, there is no financial incentive to give long sentences. Of course, any given judge could be bribed by any given corporation to give long sentences to people who are good candidates to work. I have never heard of that actually happening, but I haven't actually looked. Of course, that would be illegal and tangential to this discussion.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

What people are totally glossing over, with the exception of Jester and Pete, it costs money to house these prisoners. If these people were not incarcerated, they would have to work for a living to feed, cloth, and shelter themselves legitimately. Why should they get all these things for free because they broke society's laws? What most here don't understand is that inside a prison, prisoners can buy goods and they are paid for their work (miniscule as it is, but they are) and they also pay for luxury goods, like cigarettes, at far reduced rates (a pack of cigarettes in prison will cost about a $1 to $2 depending where as a pack of cigarettes outside of prison can run you close to $5 to $7 per pack, if not more).

And prisoners in the US are not treated terribly unlike other prisoners like in China or Iran, in some cases, the prisoners get a better life behind bars than if they were out on the streets in some US cities. There are some people in the US that think we're too lenient on prisoners.

Here is a report about California, who must reduce its prison population.

Here in Minnesota, there was a big political drama when it was learned that the 2 dozen 50" Flat Panel TV's were installed in the Moose Lake State prison for sex offenders. These really are the criminally insane people you don't want loose in your society, rather than the ones who merely shoplift video tapes, or have a large stash of marijuana.

Here is a Huffy post article -- Record-High Ratio of Americans in Prison -- Nice graphic.

[kandrathe]

But if the costs would be just to bloody high the republicans would play their 'no government interference card' and vote for less prisoners to save some money.

Be careful about blaming the Republicans. Tougher sentencing is a bi-partisan affair that plays well to voters.

Take for example the Obama resume on being tough on crime...

But, consider that overall, crime rates are dropping across the board, but arrests and incarceration is increasing. Meaning... We are criminalizing more and more in our society.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Here in Minnesota, there was a big political drama when it was learned that the 2 dozen 50" Flat Panel TV's were installed in the Moose Lake State prison for sex offenders. These really are the criminally insane people you don't want loose in your society, rather than the ones who merely shoplift video tapes, or have a large stash of marijuana.

There is something else about that story that bothers me more than inmates getting good TVs. It is not a *prison* it is, according to the article, "The Minnesota Sex Offender Program at Moose Lake is one of two state facilities that house civilly committed sex offenders who are deemed such a danger that they are held beyond their normal prison sentences."

Now, you can tell me all about how dangerous these people are and how society must protect itself. But keeping people beyond their prison sentence is wrong. They committed a crime, they were tried, convicted, and given a sentence. Then when their sentence has been served, the state determines, without a trial, without due process, without even a new charge (and acting on the old one is double jeopardy) that they should be incarcerated longer. By what right? I have no problem locking the true sex predators up and throwing away the key, or feeding them to an endangered species (alligators come to mind), but let's do it right. If that's what we're going to do to them, then let's put a law in the books saying so. Let the incarceration period given as a sentence include whatever time they must serve in a sex offender program. Or make it a life sentence with the possibility of parole being contingent on being declared 'cured' in such a program.

And let's keep in mind the no ex post facto business. Yeah, if some of those scumbags are already in jail and there's no law on the books to keep them past their sentence, then you just can't do it. Sure, you can pass that law for when it happens again in the future, but you can't make it retroactive.

Of course, we could just do what they used to do. Very few sex predators, especially child molesters, ever made it to trial. Amazingly, they mostly tried to escape while multiple people held guns on them. And while we're at it, let's reintroduce wergeld.

--Pete