Prison beats College.

[Tmy]

There was an article in the Boston Globe about how for the state budget has allocated more money to the Corrections dept than higher education. They had a chart showing the how the steady rise of the corrections budget has caught up to the roller coaster higher ed budget. Kinda sad.

Whats up with the exploding prison costs. War on drugs???

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tmy
...

Whats up with the exploding prison costs. War on drugs??? Cable TV.

[Richard G]

Prisons are the best use of public money. (right up there with police and fire protection)

[Tony]

If it were up to me, a lot the "laws" people break to get into prison would not exist. Including, but not limited to, drugs laws, and gun laws.

[American]

The two shouldn't be compared. They each deserve seperate consideration; there is no relation whatsoever.

[rustypouch]

They're both kind of the same. In either one you should kick someone's ass the first day or become someone's bitch.

[The Fool]

Prisoners get politicians elected, when have you ever heard a politician pledging to put less people behind bars? Imprisoning and executing people is needed for the "tough on crime" image.

I believe the same paranoia that causes some people to feel the need to wear a handgun 24/7 is the same paranoia that needs to see lots and lots of "baddies" in prison...the more the better.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tmy
There was an article in the Boston Globe about how for the state budget has allocated more money to the Corrections dept than higher education. They had a chart showing the how the steady rise of the corrections budget has caught up to the roller coaster higher ed budget. Kinda sad.

Whats up with the exploding prison costs. War on drugs???

Prisons have to contend with many issues that colleges do not.

Since prisoners have been compelled to be wards of the state, the state has to provide housing, food, health care, shelter, security, education, etc. at no charge to them. Whereas college students are in college because they want to be there, therefore they are charged for the expenses they incur.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Prisons have to contend with many issues that colleges do not.

Since prisoners have been compelled to be wards of the state, the state has to provide housing, food, health care, shelter, security, education, etc. at no charge to them. Whereas college students are in college because they want to be there, therefore they are charged for the expenses they incur. It's hardly the point that to accommodate a prisoner costs more than to accommodate a student, but rather the trend -- less and less toward education and more and more toward incarceration.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by hgc
It's hardly the point that to accommodate a prisoner costs more than to accommodate a student, but rather the trend -- less and less toward education and more and more toward incarceration.

Sorry about that! If that was his point, I guess I missed it.

[Graham]

I would be interested to know how many people are in prison in the state versus how many are in higher education.

Plus, isn't it the case that you pay for your own college fees in the states?

IMO, to get a true picture of the expense of education versus the expense of the prison system you would have to factor in the fees paid by the students.

Maybe prisoners could be charged rent. Obviously, if they have no money, a low-interest loan could be arranged.

That's not a bad idea, now that I think of it. After their release, bill each prisoner in monthly instalments for his or her prison time - for the rest of their lives if necessary.

You could even charge extra for TV access, gym membership or whatever.

The perfect capitalist solution!

Graham

[Tmy]

We have one county sheriff whos hard nosed tatics have made national news. He wants to charge inamtes $5 a day (problem is youll waste more time trying to collect this money) hes used chain gangs, took away the weights (I agree wh that) the TV's ( I disagree. Controled TV access can be educational). people are happythat hes made the county jail a lousy place to be. But lots of the gaurds are pissed because of the high tensions and no dangling carrots available to encourage good behavior.

Y know whats a big part ofthe prison costs. Disability claims. It seems like evey tiem theres a ruckus a bunch of guards end up in the hospital with "back problems". Ive met so many former guards who are out on disabilty. I think 1/2 of them are scams.

[Crossbow]

And if they refuse to pay, what do you do, send them to prision?

Most prisioners are already indigent which is why they use public defenders, while the ones with means get good lawyers and make deals or get off all together (read OJ Simpson).

[hgc]

Originally posted by Graham
I would be interested to know how many people are in prison in the state versus how many are in higher education.

Plus, isn't it the case that you pay for your own college fees in the states?States subsidize the costs of colleges and universities within the state system. Thus residents who would not otherwise afford it can afford higher education.IMO, to get a true picture of the expense of education versus the expense of the prison system you would have to factor in the fees paid by the students.

Maybe prisoners could be charged rent. Obviously, if they have no money, a low-interest loan could be arranged.

That's not a bad idea, now that I think of it. After their release, bill each prisoner in monthly instalments for his or her prison time - for the rest of their lives if necessary.

You could even charge extra for TV access, gym membership or whatever.

The perfect capitalist solution!

Graham Most people in prison don't have a lot of money. There's simply not much to collect. But anyway, many people convicted of a crime are assessed a fine in addition to possible prison time.

I can picture it now: Ex-convict steals to make cost of incarceration payments to state!

This reminds me of the movie "Brazil," where prisoners who are brought in for questioning (torture) then have their bank accounts automatically debited for the cost of the torture session.

[Tony]

I see a lot of people b!tching, thats ok. How would you solve the prison "problem"? People commit crimes, that's a fact. What would you prefer to do with murderers, rapists and the rest of society's scum? Do you want prison funding to be cut?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tony
I see a lot of people b!tching, thats ok. How would you solve the prison "problem"? People commit crimes, that's a fact. What would you prefer to do with murderers, rapists and the rest of society's scum? Do you want prison funding to be cut? Who's bitching about putting murderers and rapists in prison? Show us. I think you already agree that drug users and minor drug dealers don't belong in prison (at least for the drug crime). That's why our prison costs are going up, with money being diverted from teaching people how to do something with their lives.

[Tony]

Originally posted by hgc
Who's bitching about putting murderers and rapists in prison? Show us.

No one is, but that wasnt my point, sorry for the misunderstanding. I mean that people are b!tching about the issue in question. I agree that it is a bad and disturbing trend.

I think you already agree that drug users and minor drug dealers don't belong in prison (at least for the drug crime). That's why our prison costs are going up, with money being diverted from teaching people how to do something with their lives.


I agree.

How would you change the system?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Crossbow
And if they refuse to pay, what do you do, send them to prision?

Most prisioners are already indigent which is why they use public defenders, while the ones with means get good lawyers and make deals or get off all together (read OJ Simpson).

Bear in mind that I'm making this up as I go along . . .

1) for collection puposes, perhaps it could be tied into the tax system. Ex-cons charged a higher rate, perhaps or an additional annual levy.

2) for the indigent, I would (regardless of this proposition) argue that no one should leave prison without a job to go to. I think it should be part of sentencing - two years in jail plus a minimum of two years monitored working or work on a government sponsored programme.

Repayments would have to be tailored to income. It is likely that a low income prisoner would never pay back his entire loan - shrug - so be it.

Graham

[Tmy]

( I wish I had the news artilce to link)

My beef was that the prison budget has risen every year over the last 10 years. which is strange because the crime rate has been up n down during that time.

I thik we shoudl try alternate ways of correction. Rapists and murderers, fine lock tehm up. But drug addicts and petty drug dealers???

[Graham]

Originally posted by Tony


No one is, but that wasnt my point, sorry for the misunderstanding. I mean that people are b!tching about the issue in question. I agree that it is a bad and disturbing trend.

I think you already agree that drug users and minor drug dealers don't belong in prison (at least for the drug crime). That's why our prison costs are going up, with money being diverted from teaching people how to do something with their lives.


I agree.

How would you change the system?

Expand the community service system so that people convicted of "lesser" crimes are put to work, full time and hard labour if they're physically able for it and that's what's needed.

There is plenty of beneficial work that could be done by not so willing hands.

I would even go so far as to advocate the state selling the labour of prisoners to private corporations.

Graham

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tony


I think you already agree that drug users and minor drug dealers don't belong in prison (at least for the drug crime). That's why our prison costs are going up, with money being diverted from teaching people how to do something with their lives.


I agree.

How would you change the system?

In Mass they are experimenting with a "Drug Court". Its a court session that focus' specifically on drug cases. Imagine AA meets criminal court. Theres a big focus on rehab and probation supervison. Its kidna funny, theres even clapping and praise in the courtroom for people who succsessfully complete their rehab.

The problem is that probation depts are usually targets of budget cuts while correction rakes in the money.

[The Don]

Talk of inmates paying to stay in prison smacks of marching bravely into the 19th century where prisoners were expected to meet the cost of their board (and in some cases room). Could this lead to a two-tier prosin service where the Aitkens and Archers of this world get to pay for the very best whereas the poorer inmate won't be able to afford it.

I'm also concerned that the cost of keeping someone in prison (I seem to remember £100/ day) would be nothnig to the rich - and far too much for the poor. In effect the poor prisoner (who would have worse lawyers and is therefore likely to have a longer sentence) would be punished twice.

Using prison labour get us into trouble. I'm a company doing 'x' and I go out of business because the prison service (or their chosen corporate partner) can undercut me with almost free labour - no thanks

And what about the brouhaha when prisoners were found to be employed as telephone travel agents ? (Please come rob my house, I'll be away from time a to time b)

The whole set of ideas smacks of soundbiteism

Sorry Graham, you seem to have hit a nerve there

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tony
...

How would you change the system? For starters, end the drug war.

That alone will reduce not just prison costs, but all kinds of enforcement and prosecution costs. When you think about it, you begin to see how the motivation behind continuing the drug war is not just the expected "what about the children?" know-nothingness, but also that a lot of people make their living and have healthy investments in the drug war. From police to prosecutors to judges to the private prison services firms, and so on. They're not just wasting our society's money, but they're wasting people's lives in prison that might otherwise be rescued or don't even need rescuing.

Makes me mad.

[Tony]

Originally posted by hgc
For starters, end the drug war.



I am in violent agreement. My next question is: Why does the drug war continue and what/who are the obstacles standing in the way of ending the drug war? The DEA, being the money soaking, leaching bureaucracy that it is, is one obstacle.

[Tmy]

Politicians! They are a big problem. No one campianes on "we're gonna let druggies out of jail". If they did theyd be crucified. They do the opposite with mandatory minimums and more money to law enforcement.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tmy


In Mass they are experimenting with a "Drug Court". Its a court session that focus' specifically on drug cases. Imagine AA meets criminal court. Theres a big focus on rehab and probation supervison. Its kidna funny, theres even clapping and praise in the courtroom for people who succsessfully complete their rehab.

The problem is that probation depts are usually targets of budget cuts while correction rakes in the money.

That seems a big problem, that there is sort of a false economy paradox to the whole prison problems. Moneys that could be spent to perhaps reduce tommorrow's demand for prison space is being hijacked to pay for that very same space. Plus, programs on the inside that could reduce security costs and maybe lessen future need for space are discontinued not only for cost but sometimes for the political reason that "it's supposed to be punishment."

From the first category we have the notorious "Midnight Basketball" proposal from the Clinton administration. The idea being in the inner city to spend a few bucks to create a program for kids at risk for criminal activity to have something legitimate to do on weekends. This was shouted down as an example of liberal softness, rather than seen as a pragmatic solution to a real problem. As a cost/benefit measure you don't have to prevent a whole lot of prison sentences to outweigh the cost of a few basketballs and some gym space.

From the second category we have uproar about prisoner's "privleges," such as television, weightlifting, and even vocational training. Their availability is a valuable tool for administrators as it gives them something to take away from the prisoners. However, this is allowing tax money to be used for the enjoyment of those imprisoned, so the utility often gets ignored in favor of political points. Then other means of control are established, usually negative, which increases the need for guards, special areas (segregation) and so on and so forth.

I get a sense from the whole thing that we as a country have weird values when it comes to crime prevention. We will do anything but make other people's lives easier. I suspect there is a streak of "nobody ever gave me X and I never did anything wrong" to the whole deal. That and an irrational sense of blackmail, that we are bribing people not to do bad things. Seems odd when you compare that principle to a complete acceptence of using the threat of negative consequences to bring about the same outcome.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly

From the first category we have the notorious "Midnight Basketball" proposal from the Clinton administration. The idea being in the inner city to spend a few bucks to create a program for kids at risk for criminal activity to have something legitimate to do on weekends. This was shouted down as an example of liberal softness, rather than seen as a pragmatic solution to a real problem. As a cost/benefit measure you don't have to prevent a whole lot of prison sentences to outweigh the cost of a few basketballs and some gym space.




That might have been a good idea, I dunno, I was too young to give a ***** at the time. But having yet another Fed. government program just increases the government's control, power and influence. Not a good thing IMO. Leave such programs up to the states.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony



That might have been a good idea, I dunno, I was too young to give a ***** at the time. But having yet another Fed. government program just increases the government's control, power and influence. Not a good thing IMO. Leave such programs up to the states.

There is something to be said for the fact that the Feds should stay out of criminal matters occuring within a state. However, that argument wasn't really used in opposition to this plan because other sections proposed funding to put thousands more police officers on the street, and most Republicans were just fine and happy with that.

It's just that if the feds insist on meddling in these matters I'd with they'd at least be reasonable about it. The whole federal crime bill is a political joke to begin with, as it would be more effective if the feds just gave money to the states and allowed the states to use it however they want, rather than dictating that it be used for specific purposes. Central control is, in most cases, going to be less efficent than local control.

[Brown]

I had to read the title of this thread three times before realizing that it didn't say, "Princeton beats Colgate."

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Brown
I had to read the title of this thread three times before realizing that it didn't say, "Princeton beats Colgate."

I've been struggling not to make a Florida State joke myself.


I guess I gave in...

[Graham]

Originally posted by The Don
Talk of inmates paying to stay in prison smacks of marching bravely into the 19th century where prisoners were expected to meet the cost of their board (and in some cases room). Could this lead to a two-tier prosin service where the Aitkens and Archers of this world get to pay for the very best whereas the poorer inmate won't be able to afford it.

It could but it wouldn't have to. YOu say "19th Century" like that automatically means it was wrong then and would be wrong now. I don't think that is necessarily so.


I'm also concerned that the cost of keeping someone in prison (I seem to remember £100/ day) would be nothnig to the rich - and far too much for the poor. In effect the poor prisoner (who would have worse lawyers and is therefore likely to have a longer sentence) would be punished twice.

How about a system with a fixed cost per prisoner and the prisoner pays as much (or as little) of that amount as he can afford?

Using prison labour get us into trouble. I'm a company doing 'x' and I go out of business because the prison service (or their chosen corporate partner) can undercut me with almost free labour - no thanks

I would say that the prison system should not be running the business themselves. Rather they should provide a pool of labour for private corporations at the going market rate.

Perhaps tax incentives could be offered to encourage businesses to set up in prison grounds.

If a prisoner was on a five year term or more, it would be worth the company's while to train them in, IMO, since quite often nowadays, this is as long as many employees stick at one job.

That would have the added advantage that the prisoner would leave prison with a skill and work experience.

And what about the brouhaha when prisoners were found to be employed as telephone travel agents ? (Please come rob my house, I'll be away from time a to time b)

I think there would have to be restrictions on the type of work carried out. Primarily manufacturing or assembly would be my first thought.


The whole set of ideas smacks of soundbiteism

Sorry Graham, you seem to have hit a nerve there

Like I said, I made the idea up on the spur of the moment - thining aloud more than anything else.

It seems to have potential to me though.

Graham

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Graham


I think there would have to be restrictions on the type of work carried out. Primarily manufacturing or assembly would be my first thought.



What you suggest is largely already in place in many U.S. prisons, it's just that it isn't explicit. Instead of being paid at the market rate, prisoners that work are paid a very small sum to their "trust accounts" to be used to buy things and also to give the bugger a chance if and when he walks out the front gate.

This work generally comes in two forms. First, prison upkeep. Prisoners' labor is used to maintain the prison, clean floors, cook food, deliver food, and so on. Otherwise this work would have to be done with labor at market prices. The second form is the creation of things like license plates; items that the state needs that they can create themselves or make with labor purchased on the market. Somewhere between these two ideas is the prisoner picking up trash on the highway.

There also are programs in some states where prison labor is farmed out to private corporations.

The problem is when you bill the inmates for the cost of their stay. This does seem mildly barbaric, and also brings up the problem of possibly having an inmate leave the jail in a hole. Recidivism is a big enough problem without making life on the outside any harder for the ex-con; they will have enough trouble finding legitimate employment as it is.

The better approach seems to me to pay the inmates a very, very small wage for their labor, as is the present practice in most places. That encourages participation, as well as allows the inmate to actually earn some money to maybe get started right on the outside. The problem is that in some circles it is somehow considered morally "wrong" for the state to profit from inmate labor. I'd argue that as long as the money went towards the upkeep of those same inmates, there really isn't a problem. Now, if the labor was used to show a profit and the money went to the general state fund, there would be an obvious conflict of interest there as the state would have a financial incentive to imprison people, especially skilled laborers.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Suddenly


What you suggest is largely already in place in many U.S. prisons, it's just that it isn't explicit. Instead of being paid at the market rate, prisoners that work are paid a very small sum to their "trust accounts" to be used to buy things and also to give the bugger a chance if and when he walks out the front gate.

This work generally comes in two forms. First, prison upkeep. Prisoners' labor is used to maintain the prison, clean floors, cook food, deliver food, and so on. Otherwise this work would have to be done with labor at market prices. The second form is the creation of things like license plates; items that the state needs that they can create themselves or make with labor purchased on the market. Somewhere between these two ideas is the prisoner picking up trash on the highway.

There also are programs in some states where prison labor is farmed out to private corporations.

The problem is when you bill the inmates for the cost of their stay. This does seem mildly barbaric, and also brings up the problem of possibly having an inmate leave the jail in a hole. Recidivism is a big enough problem without making life on the outside any harder for the ex-con; they will have enough trouble finding legitimate employment as it is.

The better approach seems to me to pay the inmates a very, very small wage for their labor, as is the present practice in most places. That encourages participation, as well as allows the inmate to actually earn some money to maybe get started right on the outside. The problem is that in some circles it is somehow considered morally "wrong" for the state to profit from inmate labor. I'd argue that as long as the money went towards the upkeep of those same inmates, there really isn't a problem. Now, if the labor was used to show a profit and the money went to the general state fund, there would be an obvious conflict of interest there as the state would have a financial incentive to imprison people, especially skilled laborers.

Interesting. I would suggest that the prisoners should be paid a normal wage for the type of work that they are doing and that that wage should go towards their upkeep in its entirety (in seems unllikely that it would equal or exceed the cost of their upkeep but if that were to happen, the excess should be invested for the prisoner until his release).

Perhaps a proportion of the wages should be invested anyway for the purposes, as you say, of giving the prisoner a "start" upon release.

Perhaps it is impractical/undesirable to continue charging prisoners after they are released but I definitely think they should be obliged to contribute as much as possible whilst they are "inside".

I would also like to see prisoners working at jobs whilst in prison that give them skill sand experience that they can use once they leave.

I'm not sure that there's much call for licence plate stampers in the outside world!

Graham

[scribble]

Originally posted by Graham
Bear in mind that I'm making this up as I go along . . .


'Sokay, I do that a lot.


1) for collection puposes, perhaps it could be tied into the tax system. Ex-cons charged a higher rate, perhaps or an additional annual levy.


What abotu people arrested for tax evasion? Okay, more seriously, inmates already pay for everything in their prisons but their beds, pretty much. IF there's a library, book rentals are usually free,and if there's a television, those are usually free. PRison clothing, underwear, paper to write on, pens, decks of cards, and any other object you're allowed to come in contact with in prison comes from the commisary, which you pay for.

And that said, a lot of prisoners can't even afford that.


2) for the indigent, I would (regardless of this proposition) argue that no one should leave prison without a job to go to. I think it should be part of sentencing - two years in jail plus a minimum of two years monitored working or work on a government sponsored programme.


Just what we need: more hardened criminals in government positions. But seriously, it's extremely common to have employment be a condition of parole - in fact I don't believe I've ever seen it happen otherwise. Seeing as how this is something that we can already choose to apply on a selective basis, why should we make it universal (I'm assuming it isn't already - I can't think of any case I've seen that parole didn't have continuous employment as a requirement)

-Chris


Repayments would have to be tailored to income. It is likely that a low income prisoner would never pay back his entire loan - shrug - so be it.

Graham [/B][/QUOTE]