We seriously need a prison system overhaul

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local...tro-inm/nk98F/

This is, of course completely unacceptable. Rape between inmates is terrible enough, but for the person in charge to use his power this way is disgusting. These were women with no agency, in an impossible situation - and it would be equally offensive if it were male prisoners being raped, and regardless of the gender of the guard in either case. There should be safeguards in place to prevent these occurrences - perhaps surveillance cameras where the footage can only be viewed/erased by an offsite panel.

This is part of a larger problem, however; we incarcerate too many people. Our prison system is a nightmare. Locking people up for drug offenses and victimless crimes is absurd. Rehabilitation would do more good than incarceration in many cases, but that is unfortunately an option that is usually only offered to the wealthy. It would likely be more cost effective, with the added benefit of not treating people like animals. Yes, there are some crimes where people should be locked away - but even for rapists and other violent felons some rehabilitation should be attempted. With less petty bullshit offenders in the system, keeping the rest of the inmates safe and secure would be much less onerous, and I would think this would lessen the workload for the staff and provide greater safety as well.

I don't think incarcerating less people is necessarily the answer. We must ensure that those who are incarcerated deserve to be - that they're guilty of something that deserves incarceration. But there's no quantitative limit to what that should be.

Anyone who rapes someone for example is a criminal that deserves incarceration. Rehabilitation can be attempted on the inside but I don't see any excuse to suggest that a rapist shouldn't be incarcerated. If that rapist is someone who was in a position of trust like this, then absolutely they should go into the prison system as a convict and not a guard.

Rand, that's what she was saying: The US incarcerate too many people for stuff that's not prison-worthy.

I agree with that. I'm just saying that I don't think its fair to say "we incarcerate too many people." "We incarcerate too many people for the wrong things" I can agree with.

The notion of rape or other violent felonies ever not having incarceration I would not agree to.

Well, if you look at the US incarceration rates then it's perfectly valid to say that the US has too many people in prison. Regardless of reasons.

Plus: You do know that the period at the end of a sentence doesn't also end the logical continuity of a thought? Because currently you're ripping one sentence of hers out of context.
Currently, what you're arguing about looks a bit like this:

Her: "A is too much. B related to A is bad. A should be only applied to C."
You: "I don't agree that A is too much because it should only be applied to C!"

Actually apply your own logic to my sentences. I said "We must ensure that those incarcerated deserve to be" are you disagreeing with that?

I don't think US incarceration rates are too high just because of the rates themselves. The rates may be too high, but there is no reason to say they are definitively based on the rates alone "regardless of reasons". That I disagree with.

EDIT: The US incarceration rate is 716/100,000 ... I don't see any reason based on numbers alone "regardless of reasons" to suggest that 0.7% of the US population don't deserve to be in prison.

Good grief. Dude, you're arguing because you didn't fully read what Lolli was writing. I won't bother with this thread any further.

Plus, if you honestly think that an incarceration rate 50+% higher than Russia, China, Cuba or Rwanda isn't a problem for a 1st World nation then you have a problem. But that you already established in this thread.

No I did read it. You didn't fully read what I wrote so over-reacted. I fully and uncategorically agreed with Lolli that only those who deserve to be should be in prison.

As for incarceration rates, having higher rates than in nations were corruption is rife and criminals are allowed to run free could be a good thing. No I don't see a problem with it, if Russia was known for having no criminals free then you may have a point, but you don't.

If we become better at catching and convicting our criminals then incarceration rates go up not down. Its a measure of success.

Incarceration rates are not a measure of success, crime rates are...

Khen is not completely wrong here either, lolli clearly wrote that she meant drug offenses and victimless crime, but you switched it straight to rapists. Yeah, of course rapists should be punished, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. And no, the increase in prison population is not due to violent criminals:

"A recent study found that, over the past 13 years, the proportion of new prisoners in Florida who had committed violent crimes fell by 28%, whereas those inside for “other” crimes shot up by 189%. These “other” crimes were non-violent ones involving neither drugs nor theft, such as driving with a suspended licence."

http://www.economist.com/node/16636027

Right. I'm hardly saying violent criminals should go free. It is possible, however, to offer rehabilitation services for someone in a prison so that they get both help and punishment. Perhaps for some it would do no good at all, but it might prevent recidivism in others - and even for heinous crimes there is often a release date at some point, so why not use whatever means are available to try to stop people from being repeat offenders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Incarceration rates are not a measure of success, crime rates are...

---

It's overly simplistic to regard any number as either good or bad in isolation. Those who deserve incarceration should get it, if they're not then that's bad. Those who don't, shouldn't, if they are then that's bad. So incarceration rates could be either too high or too low, its not black or white.

Quote:

---

Khen is not completely wrong here either, lolli clearly wrote that she meant drug offenses and victimless crime, but you switched it straight to rapists. Yeah, of course rapists should be punished, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. And no, the increase in prison population is not due to violent criminals:

---

I went to rapists because the news article is about a prison guard who is a rapist. I'm saying he should go to prison and I can't imaging any excuse for him getting rehabilitation for what he's done. Did you read the news article? I even continued the point by ending my post referring to him needing to return to the "prison system as a convict and not a guard."

Quote:

---

"A recent study found that, over the past 13 years, the proportion of new prisoners in Florida who had committed violent crimes fell by 28%, whereas those inside for “other” crimes shot up by 189%. These “other” crimes were non-violent ones involving neither drugs nor theft, such as driving with a suspended licence."

http://www.economist.com/node/16636027

---

Driving with a suspended licence could kill someone. That should mean imprisonment as should drink driving. This isn't a first strike, losing the licence in the first place indicates enough of an offence to have led to the suspension. Continuing to drive even after the licence is suspended is inexcusable. What alternatives do you intend for someone who is serially breaking the law in a way that could lead to fatalities? To drive without a licence as its been suspended shows callous disregard for both the law and for any potential casualties. You can't punish them by suspending the licence again as its already suspended so do we need to wait until they kill someone on the road before we take action? I'd rather we don't wait until there are people crippled or in the morgue before we send these criminals to prison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

It's overly simplistic to regard any number as either good or bad in isolation. Those who deserve incarceration should get it, if they're not then that's bad. Those who don't, shouldn't, if they are then that's bad. So incarceration rates could be either too high or too low, its not black or white.

---

Exactly, which is why I called out your point that incarceration rays are a measure of success, which us rubbish. Crone rates are the ultimate goal though, right? Not just using incarceration, of course.

Quote:

---

I went to rapists because the news article is about a prison guard who is a rapist. I'm saying he should go to prison and I can't imaging any excuse for him getting rehabilitation for what he's done. Did you read the news article? I even continued the point by ending my post referring to him needing to return to the "prison system as a convict and not a guard."

---

I did read the article actually. I also read the post which you apparently still haven't, as it clearly says that the article is an example of something that's wrong with the prison system, but that far more is wrong, including notably the incarceration rate. Which the second part was about. I'll reply to the rest later, it's late now.

A few thoughts.

1. Non-violent offenders with drug related charges (and no other crimes) should go free. That will make a lot of room.
2. If we killed more prisoners through death penalty we would be incarcerating a smaller population.
3. People who rape, assault and steal should be in prison for far longer.

Is #2 really meant to be serious? We have millions of people in jail. We execute a few dozen a year. Just how drastically would you change that number? A thousand fold?

How would you feel about using the jail time for theft to address issues (as circumstances dictate) that led to the theft to begin with - poverty, addiction, lack of education, inability to deal with peer pressure, etc.? I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but why not have some hope of when a prisoner is released that he or she won't be a recidivist?

He probably is serious, Loki - but from a more realistic standpoint, I don't necessarily think that the death penalty is much of a deterrent.

You won't address the key problem there: no one wants to employ ex-cons. That means that once you're out, your best bet is a dead-end minimum wage job. That's not a great recipe for getting out of poverty. It also makes getting an education in jail pointless (from a career perspective).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Is #2 really meant to be serious? We have millions of people in jail. We execute a few dozen a year. Just how drastically would you change that number? A thousand fold?

---

I'm OK with starting slowly. Pretty much anyone convicted of murder 1 and strong evidence should face the death penalty initially. From there it can be expanded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlelolligagged

How would you feel about using the jail time for theft to address issues (as circumstances dictate) that led to the theft to begin with - poverty, addiction, lack of education, inability to deal with peer pressure, etc.? I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but why not have some hope of when a prisoner is released that he or she won't be a recidivist?

He probably is serious, Loki - but from a more realistic standpoint, I don't necessarily think that the death penalty is much of a deterrent.

---

It's a difficult challenge but just because it's difficult doesn't mean it should be faced up to. Though its not as if we don't try ensuring these issues are addressed with halfway houses etc to smooth the transition, it is just that it is very difficult to remove the conditions that led to the crime in the first place. Especially the individual is still the same. Some turn their lives away, many won't. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try though. The government should also put as much effort into avoiding recidivism in the first year or so after release as it does in ensuring they're incarcerated.

The death penalty is no deterrent and plays absolutely no role in numbers management.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I'm OK with starting slowly. Pretty much anyone convicted of murder 1 and strong evidence should face the death penalty initially. From there it can be expanded.

---

Expanded beyond murder?

So basically whatever crime one's committed the sensible thing to do is to go out in a hail of bullets taking down as many Police as you can like in a Western because you're just going to be executed anyway. Yes that will work well :rolleyes:

We already have the death penalty in cases other than murder and we don't see that happening.

Do you? I thought SCOTUS had basically ruled only murder can carry the death penalty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Do you? I thought SCOTUS had basically ruled only murder can carry the death penalty?

---

You can still be sentenced to death for treason. Felony murder is also 'murder' and can carry a death sentence though a lot of people (ie liberals) don't think being the get away driver with no plan to kill someone should be considered murder.

I definitely don't for the death penalty. For life in prison yes.