I don't often agree with Ezra Klein, but he hits this one out of the park:
Criminals aren't sent to prison so they can learn to live outside of prison; they're sent to prison to get what they deserve. And that paves the way for the acceptance of all manners of brutal abuses. It's not that we condone prison rape per se, but it doesn't exactly concern us, and occasionally, as in the comments made by Lockyer, we take a perverse satisfaction in its existence.
Morally, our tacit acceptance of violence within prisons is grotesque. But it's also counterproductive. Research by economists Jesse Shapiro and Keith Chen suggests that violent prisons make prisoners more violent after they leave. When your choice is between the trauma of hardening yourself so no one will touch you or the trauma of prostituting yourself so you're protected from attack, either path leads away from rehabilitation and psychological adjustment.
I think that we have a lot too many people in prison, but that aside, with the possible exception of rapists (for whom it might be an appropriate eye-for-eye punishment) no one should have to fear being raped in prison. I think that it's shameful that our society tolerates this. If we want to be explicit and openly declare that we are sentencing drug offenders and others to be raped, then we should do that, but if not, then we should put an end to it. I accept no excuses from the penal community. If they didn't want it to happen, they could stop it.
Unfortunately, this isn't the first time someone has pointed this out, and sadly, it won't be the last, either. I see no groundswell of support to do anything about it.
Leftist twit that he is, Klein doesn't realize that calling rape a human rights violation will cause most of his readers' eyes to glaze over. It's really something lower on the body that's being violated.
I hired a man on work release. He was educated and smart. (except for the powder he had been selling)
We talked about prisons a good bit during the year he worked with me. Prisons are such a profitable enterprize that the incentives are to keep as many as possible at any given facility.
As far as we could figure, the work release facility grossed 25-30k from supervising him during the 6 months he worked with me on work release. During this time he was eating over half of his meals at work from his own pocket. We were working 50-70 hrs a week. So during much of this time, he was eating
They also collected 55% of his take home pay up to ~$220.00 a week. I screwed up the filing deadlines for getting a several grand tax break for hiring him and helping his 'rehabilitation and restitution'.
With the incentives structured that way, it is easy for me to see how prisons can be a growth industry. He* worked with me another 6 months after release and started his own business. This is quite unusual as far as I can tell.
Rand, I apologize for the rant, this subject means something to me.
*I'm white and he is black in the south, so of course the company joke was that he was the slave. The joke lost much of its' humor anytime there was any disagreement on the job. According to the work release supervisor, about all I had to do was complain to get him back in real prison.
The real problem is that prisoners actually have the energy to commit rape in jail. They ought to be too exhausted from 16-hour days of hard labour in something like a rock quarry to do anything but grab a meal (preferably, from society's point of view, an utterly disgusting one) and sleep.
I know physical 16 hour days and the effect on the body. Unless you consider a very high death rate to be a feature instead of a bug, you can't work people that hard that long for more than a few days at a time. And even then the weaker will suffer from the stronger.
The problem is that convicted felons need to recieve proper punishment AND a rehabilitative capability. Proper is not laying around a cell watching cable in air conditioning, but neither is it excessive brutality in any form. If they are not being conditioned to reenter society in useful form, then prison is strictly punishment.
I have worked with many people that have done time. An unfortunate percentage of them have never had their mindset altered into something that keeps them from going back in. Given the conditions I hear about from people that were there, on both sides of the wire, brutal conditions just make for brutal people. Then they come back outside.
As long as prisons are a profit per prisoner industry, you cannot expect them to do a good job of providing a high class rehabilitative environment. Regulating their profits has been tried repeatedly and doesn't work, any more than privitization has. Prison management needs to have some strong incentives in place to get prisoners that are capable of it, out of the system. My solution for habitual offenders is not printable here.
Incentives for police, lawyers, judges, parole officers, and others in the loop should also be directed at getting society hazzard people into a better mindset. Police are partially judged by their arrest records, lawyers compensated by fighting the case to the limit of the clients money, and so on.
It will fail more often than work. So do rockets and new businesses.
I agree with rand. it is not the place of prisoners to inflict the punishment of the state. the state reserves to itself the sole perogative of retributive violence condoning prisoner on prisoner violence turns our justice system upside down.
ron
As long as prisons are a profit per prisoner industry, you cannot expect them to do a good job of providing a high class rehabilitative environment. Regulating their profits has been tried repeatedly and doesn't work, any more than privitization has. Prison management needs to have some strong incentives in place to get prisoners that are capable of it, out of the system.
I would say the incentive is obvious. Privatize prisons and only pay the owners AFTER the inmate gets out and only as long as he stays out of trouble.
Define your goal properly, agree to pay when it is acheived, and let bidders figure out how to achieve it.
The central problem is that there is no political advantage to be gained by supporting humane treatment of prisoners, while the people who run prisons and who benefit from the status quo are politically organized. Prisoners and ex-prisoners can't vote; prison staff are unionized. And many voters have a "throw away the key" attitude toward prisoners and don't distinguish between murderers and people convicted of drug possession.
The real problem is that prisoners actually have the energy to commit rape in jail. They ought to be too exhausted from 16-hour days of hard labour in something like a rock quarry to do anything but grab a meal (preferably, from society's point of view, an utterly disgusting one) and sleep.
I have two comments. First, prisoners should get fair wages for that work. I don't care if they're in for life and no hope of ever spending that money themselves. Any victims or relatives of the prisoner could use that money, even if the prisoner can't.
Second, almost all prisoners will eventually get out. Too many of them are committing crimes and ending up back in jail. I think we need to focus on rehabilitation over punishment. Having some savings built up from working in prison could encourage former prisoners to stay law-abiding.
Karl, very noble of you; but have you considered deterrence? I believe the recidivism rate in that town in Arizona with the famous sherriff is extremely low; perhaps because nobody that's been through his system wants to go back.
Prison ought to be as unpleasant, degrading and possibly painful (without causing permanent damage) as possible. However, I completely agree that the other prisoners should not supply the unpleasantness.
Another often neglected aspect of this whole subject is that prisoners who go in not being addicted often come out as junkies, often with the connivance of the staff. Penalty for staff actively helping the drug culture in jails ought to be incarceration in the same jail they were wardens in.
I have also never understood the supposed logic of concurrent sentences. It seems to me that the only people who benefit from that are the criminals (who don't get punished as they deserve) and the police (who get better clearup figures).
If you commit 48 burglaries, which have a normal sentence of 6 months, then you ought to get 24 years - perhaps more, as you obviously view prison as an occupational hazard.
Flecher,
Disagree with your first, and agree with your second post mostly. To me, deterence is some part of rehabilitation. The only time I've been in a jail cell is to help carry out chairs for traffic court. I am afraid of jail or prison as either would ruin everything I have tried to build up over the years. That is deterence without even the experience. And that is before you get to the physically unpleasant aspects.
People with nothing to lose have a very different viewpoint.