[DanSC]

Yet, county prisons in California are almost empty.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/22 ... s-20110522

[fifeboy]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Hard to say what any policy's effects will be before hand. Our entire justice system is currently based on the principle of "negative incentive" (you fuck up, you get punished). My scheme offers a positive incentive and positive incentives are certainly more effective than negative ones.

Well, I would think that your idea of having to pay for prison time would fail because most people going into jail go there because they have an attitude that makes them think they won't get caught, society owes me, I'm the king of the hood, etc. I am sure you get the idea. Putting them into a prison where they are just kept, at minimum.cost and then letting them know they will have to pay when they get out is going to create some really negative effects. They went in thinking they were invincible and left to moulder, and now have to pay for at least 5 years. I can't see it working. What they need is social training, job skills and supervision when they get out.

Lemmy Lemmy:

As for the douchebag that kills his wife, well, I think I've clearly stated my position on what we should do to murderers. Murderers wouldn't have to worry about financial obligations if I were making the rules.

China, who puts a bullet in the head of murderers,directly after a brief and paper thin trial, has not appeared to dry up the supply of murders to put bullets into. In the U.S. where they at least have rights, they end up spending lots on trying to execute each convicted murderer. One way is very bad for democracy and the other way is very expensive.

[Lemmy]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Well, I would think that your idea of having to pay for prison time would fail because most people going into jail go there because they have an attitude that makes them think they won't get caught, society owes me, I'm the king of the hood, etc. I am sure you get the idea. Putting them into a prison where they are just kept, at minimum.cost and then letting them know they will have to pay when they get out is going to create some really negative effects.

I wouldn't wait 'til they get out to make them start paying. That's the whole point. They'd have to work while incarcerated to pay their bills, same as I have to work to feed myself. None of it would be a surprise to them and I expect that would have some deterrent effect.

fifeboy fifeboy:

They went in thinking they were invincible and left to moulder, and now have to pay for at least 5 years. I can't see it working. What they need is social training, job skills and supervision when they get out.

Again, you missed the point. If the inmate chooses "to moulder" then he's not going to eat because he's going to have to pay for his meals.

fifeboy fifeboy:

China, who puts a bullet in the head of murderers,directly after a brief and paper thin trial, has not appeared to dry up the supply of murders to put bullets into. In the U.S. where they at least have rights, they end up spending lots on trying to execute each convicted murderer. One way is very bad for democracy and the other way is very expensive.

You're absolutely right, exectuions don't deter murder. I call it appropriate justice. Just because the US spends as much as they do on the process doesn't mean it has to be their way or China's. Surely there's a place somewhere between kangaroo court and endless bureaucracy. But I don't want to derail this into a debate on capital punishment.

[Gunnair]

Damn it, Khar, why did you delete that!

[fifeboy]

OK, just to keep the book keeping nice, I am going to break this up.

Lemmy Lemmy:

fifeboy fifeboy:

Well, I would think that your idea of having to pay for prison time would fail because most people going into jail go there because they have an attitude that makes them think they won't get caught, society owes me, I'm the king of the hood, etc. I am sure you get the idea. Putting them into a prison where they are just kept, at minimum.cost and then letting them know they will have to pay when they get out is going to create some really negative effects.

I wouldn't wait 'til they get out to make them start paying. That's the whole point. They'd have to work while incarcerated to pay their bills, same as I have to work to feed myself. None of it would be a surprise to them and I expect that would have some deterrent effect.

I can agree with some of what you say here. Things like prison farms or supervised factory work or something along that line, where the prisoner is learning while paying his price to society works well with me, but what do you know:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/10/canada-to-shut-down-all-prison-farms/

Also, the idea of working to feed yourself could have a hitch or two, like if someone refuses to do it. What then, let them die in their beds.

I agree with the working aspect of this if it's working to gain a skill, and if it pays the government, all the better, but not necessary. Talk to Steve.

[fifeboy]

Lemmy Lemmy:

fifeboy fifeboy:

They went in thinking they were invincible and left to moulder, and now have to pay for at least 5 years. I can't see it working. What they need is social training, job skills and supervision when they get out.

Again, you missed the point. If the inmate chooses "to moulder" then he's not going to eat because he's going to have to pay for his meals.

I think the Courts would have quite a few things to say on this subject.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

You're absolutely right, executions don't deter murder.

Yes, you are right. They don't stop murderers who haven't been caught, but they do cut down on the rates of recidivism.

[fifeboy]

Lemmy Lemmy:

fifeboy fifeboy:

China, who puts a bullet in the head of murderers,directly after a brief and paper thin trial, has not appeared to dry up the supply of murders to put bullets into. In the U.S. where they at least have rights, they end up spending lots on trying to execute each convicted murderer. One way is very bad for democracy and the other way is very expensive.

You're absolutely right, exectuions don't deter murder. I call it appropriate justice. Just because the US spends as much as they do on the process doesn't mean it has to be their way or China's. Surely there's a place somewhere between kangaroo court and endless bureaucracy. But I don't want to derail this into a debate on capital punishment.

Good, I don't want to talk about it either. However, I suspect we will begin to hear lots on the subject matter as Steve's minions start flexing their muscles.

[Lemmy]

Why would the courts have to say any more about it than they'd have to say to me if I chose not to work and began to starve? We want prison to teach criminals something about personal responsibility, don't we? Shouldn't the first lesson, therefore, be the lesson that if you don't work, you don't eat? And if an inmate does refuse to work, why should it be any different for him than for me? I'd starve if I refused to work. So should inmates.

[fifeboy]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Why would the courts have to say any more about it than they'd have to say to me if I chose not to work and began to starve?

They would be because the inmate is there at Her Majesty's pleasure. The state has responsibilities for prisoners.

Lemmy Lemmy:

We want prison to teach criminals something about personal responsibility, don't we? Shouldn't the first lesson, therefore, be the lesson that if you don't work, you don't eat? And if an inmate does refuse to work, why should it be any different for him than for me? I'd starve if I refused to work. So should inmates.

Indeed we do want to teach them about personal responsibility. And the idea of getting them to work is not a bad one. That and rehab programmes, training in the trades, life skills and anger management would all help. Some of those things (training in the trades) would lead to supervised jobs that could produce income to help pay (fixing the plumbing in the PMO comes to mind .) But what Andy said, about having fewer prisoners is also good.

[Pseudonym]

I am personally a fan of our federalist model of government, which is supposed to allow the states some leeway to experiment in these kinds of policy matters. I would really like to see how Lemmy's proposal would work out.

By the way, on the original topic - I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision. There is no way they can justify the proposition that thousands of inmates have somehow had their rights abrogated. Freakin' Anthony Kennedy.

[Lemmy]

fifeboy fifeboy:

They would be because the inmate is there at Her Majesty's pleasure. The state has responsibilities for prisoners.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting should be changed.

fifeboy fifeboy:

But what Andy said, about having fewer prisoners is also good.

And I agree. My system would have A LOT fewer inmates.

[fifeboy]

Lemmy Lemmy:

fifeboy fifeboy:

They would be because the inmate is there at Her Majesty's pleasure. The state has responsibilities for prisoners.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting should be changed.

fifeboy fifeboy:

But what Andy said, about having fewer prisoners is also good.

And I agree. My system would have A LOT fewer inmates.

I don't know about that.

[Lemmy]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Lemmy Lemmy:

And I agree. My system would have A LOT fewer inmates.

I don't know about that.

I'd legalize narcotics possession, I'd execute murderers, and I would only incarcerate people for property offences if they were habitual offenders. You don't think that'd reduce the number of inmates?

[Brenda]

Lemmy Lemmy:

fifeboy fifeboy:

Lemmy Lemmy:

And I agree. My system would have A LOT fewer inmates.

I don't know about that.

I'd legalize narcotics possession, I'd execute murderers, and I would only incarcerate people for property offences if they were habitual offenders. You don't think that'd reduce the number of inmates?

Rapists? Child abusers? Habitual drunk drivers?