Prison Reform?

[Captain Adverse]

In a different thread I pointed out problems with sending youthful offenders to prison. The same problems we have with adult prisoners.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...says-son-sorry-w-245-a-27.html#post1062185475

Here’s the gist:

At the present time all prison sentencing does is throw a bunch of criminals together into a vocational school for crime. Juvenile detention is no different. Violent criminals need to be punished, but they also need to be weaned away from future violent action and taught to become a functioning member of society.

That doesn’t happen when they are merely sent to prison. Instead, they are subjected to violence from their peers, the need to organize to prevent being subjected to continued violence, and once organized they learn the value of continued use of violence in order to gain their own ends.

Many of us seem to think this is a good thing, a deserved punishment for their acts in our world. Unfortunately, it’s a bad thing because they return to society lessons learned and perpetuate even greater violence.

Our entire prison system needs to be remodeled to make it a true deterrent, punishment, and tool for rehabilitation. This also applies to juvenile offenses.

Stage I would be to decriminalize most victimless crimes, and eliminate prison sentences for DUI (which would cover drugs and alcohol while driving). DUI would result in incarceration in a drug and alcohol treatment facility followed by a period of supervised release. This would significantly reduce, if not eliminate overcrowding.

Stage II would require separating non-violent and violent offenders into different categories, then predatory sex offenders for a third category. Predatory sex offenders would be diverted to secured psychiatric treatment facilities. All other inmates would go to Stage III facilities set up for violent or non-violent offenders.

Stage III would require conversion of all existing prisons and juvenile detention facilities into a “Separate System” format (also known as the Pennsylvania System); based on the principle of keeping prisoners in solitary confinement throughout their time in prison. No trustees, and almost no physical human interaction at all beyond periodic medical exams and daily feeding.

Thanks to modern technology protected computer systems on a closed network with no internet connection can be installed in each cell to allow contact with prison authorities. This would allow classes to be taught to groups of inmates who remain anonymous to all but the instructor; individual counseling sessions; religious worship sessions; and access to a library for reading purposes. One hour of daily exercise would be allowed to each prisoner alone in a small shared yard; centrally controlled access from a door at the back of the cell with alerts for each prisoner to enter and exit before the next is allowed into the yard.

Prisoners would do HARD TIME. They would NEVER come into contact with any other prisoners. Even the medical facility would have isolation treatment cells. Six months prior to release each prisoner could be given a skills evaluation test, and then offered the option of participation in a vocational training program based on their scores after release.

That’s my idea. Any thoughts or opinions?

 

[Goshin]

In a different thread I pointed out problems with sending youthful offenders to prison. The same problems we have with adult prisoners.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...says-son-sorry-w-245-a-27.html#post1062185475

Here’s the gist:



Our entire prison system needs to be remodeled to make it a true deterrent, punishment, and tool for rehabilitation. This also applies to juvenile offenses.

Stage I would be to decriminalize most victimless crimes, and eliminate prison sentences for DUI (which would cover drugs and alcohol while driving). DUI would result in incarceration in a drug and alcohol treatment facility followed by a period of supervised release. This would significantly reduce, if not eliminate overcrowding.

Stage II would require separating non-violent and violent offenders into different categories, then predatory sex offenders for a third category. Predatory sex offenders would be diverted to secured psychiatric treatment facilities. All other inmates would go to Stage III facilities set up for violent or non-violent offenders.

Stage III would require conversion of all existing prisons and juvenile detention facilities into a “Separate System” format (also known as the Pennsylvania System); based on the principle of keeping prisoners in solitary confinement throughout their time in prison. No trustees, and almost no physical human interaction at all beyond periodic medical exams and daily feeding.

Thanks to modern technology protected computer systems on a closed network with no internet connection can be installed in each cell to allow contact with prison authorities. This would allow classes to be taught to groups of inmates who remain anonymous to all but the instructor; individual counseling sessions; religious worship sessions; and access to a library for reading purposes. One hour of daily exercise would be allowed to each prisoner alone in a small shared yard; centrally controlled access from a door at the back of the cell with alerts for each prisoner to enter and exit before the next is allowed into the yard.

Prisoners would do HARD TIME. They would NEVER come into contact with any other prisoners. Even the medical facility would have isolation treatment cells. Six months prior to release each prisoner could be given a skills evaluation test, and then offered the option of participation in a vocational training program based on their scores after release.

That’s my idea. Any thoughts or opinions?

As a former LEO, I agree the prison system is badly in need of reform. Indeed, the entire "Justice" system is in desperate need of overhaul.

While I think you have some good ideas, I think there are a couple of caveats to your suggestions:

1. Reform: there's not a lot of it in your system as designed. If a prisoner is to be released eventually, then there ought to be a concentrated effort to reform him. (personally, I don't think those who commit serious violent felonies should EVER get out until they demonstrate tangible reform). They need job training, but they also need the RIGHT kind of socialization to achieve proper reform. Unless they learn to function as part of a social matrix, when they get out they will continue to be trouble.

2. Solitary is rightly considered very harsh, and usually reserved for major problem inmates. I have no problem with making time-out-of-cell or time-in-social-contact a PRIVILEGE based on good behavior and evidence of reform, but making it universal could be considered "cruel and unusual" and may actually HARM the reformation of inmates who are to be eventually released.

Personally, I have posted a plan before with some similarities to yours, but certain crucial differences. One being that if you commit a serious violent felony, you don't GET out without solid evidence of real reform (the details of that would have to be hammered out by experts, I have some suggestions but I'll go into that later).

The second being, if after a gradual release process (halfway house and work, probationary release, full release) you again commit a second serious violent felony, you're DONE. Either a bullet in the brainpan, or if we want to be squeamish drop them in an "Escape from New York" type incarceration zone where no corrections officers are placed at risk by trying to keep order, and leave them there until they die. Food drops as the only humanitarian consideration. Why bother with more, they've proven themselves outside civilization by twice committing heinous crimes against their fellow citizens.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Career criminals and gang bangers should get their own prisons where they can victimize each other and live in their own Hell but others should be segregated from them and the focus should be more on getting them straightened out instead of punished.

 

[Captain Adverse]

As a former LEO, I agree the prison system is badly in need of reform. Indeed, the entire "Justice" system is in desperate need of overhaul.

While I think you have some good ideas, I think there are a couple of caveats to your suggestions:

1. Reform: there's not a lot of it in your system as designed. If a prisoner is to be released eventually, then there ought to be a concentrated effort to reform him. (personally, I don't think those who commit serious violent felonies should EVER get out until they demonstrate tangible reform). They need job training, but they also need the RIGHT kind of socialization to achieve proper reform. Unless they learn to function as part of a social matrix, when they get out they will continue to be trouble.

2. Solitary is rightly considered very harsh, and usually reserved for major problem inmates. I have no problem with making time-out-of-cell or time-in-social-contact a PRIVILEGE based on good behavior and evidence of reform, but making it universal could be considered "cruel and unusual" and may actually HARM the reformation of inmates who are to be eventually released.

Personally, I have posted a plan before with some similarities to yours, but certain crucial differences. One being that if you commit a serious violent felony, you don't GET out without solid evidence of real reform (the details of that would have to be hammered out by experts, I have some suggestions but I'll go into that later).

The second being, if after a gradual release process (halfway house and work, probationary release, full release) you again commit a second serious violent felony, you're DONE. Either a bullet in the brainpan, or if we want to be squeamish drop them in an "Escape from New York" type incarceration zone where no corrections officers are placed at risk by trying to keep order, and leave them there until they die. Food drops as the only humanitarian consideration. Why bother with more, they've proven themselves outside civilization by twice committing heinous crimes against their fellow citizens.

Thanks. Interesting points. Let me take some time to consider each point and see how to address each one.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Career criminals and gang bangers should get their own prisons where they can victimize each other and live in their own Hell but others should be segregated from them and the focus should be more on getting them straightened out instead of punished.

No, because you miss the point. All that does is continue to reinforce prior bad behavior. First of all they continue to socialize and instill gang loyalty. Second of all their gang affiliations offer protections and serve as recruitment points for unaffiliated "new fish" put into the system. Thirdly, they go in and come right out with the same uncontrolled violent tendencies. It actually becomes like a vocational school for career criminals and gang-bangers. That was the main point of my argument for a real (not pseudo) Pennsylvania System.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

No, because you miss the point. All that does is continue to reinforce prior bad behavior. First of all they continue to socialize and instill gang loyalty. Second of all their gang affiliations offer protections and serve as recruitment points for unaffiliated "new fish" put into the system. Thirdly, they go in and come right out with the same uncontrolled violent tendencies. It actually becomes like a vocational school for career criminals and gang-bangers. That was the main point of my argument for a real (not pseudo) Pennsylvania System.

IMO career criminals and gang members are a lost cause and not worth the time or effort. Some people are beyond help and we need to segregate them from society as long as possible.

 

[Goshin]

IMO career criminals and gang members are a lost cause and not worth the time or effort. Some people are beyond help and we need to segregate them from society as long as possible.

Unless we're going to just kill them (and we are rightly cautious about engaging in wholesale slaughter on that scale), they need to be reformed. Hell-prison pretty much guarantees that any changes in their attitudes and behaviors will be NEGATIVE.

I'd reserve hell-prison for the ones that are NEVER getting out... in my reform version, murderers, rapists and 2nd-time major-violent-felons would go there. Everyone one else goes to a facility whose express purpose is reform rather than punishment. If we're ever going to let them roam free among us again, they need their behaviors modified and they need a way to make a living honestly.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Unless we're going to just kill them (and we are rightly cautious about engaging in wholesale slaughter on that scale), they need to be reformed. Hell-prison pretty much guarantees that any changes in their attitudes and behaviors will be NEGATIVE.

I'd reserve hell-prison for the ones that are NEVER getting out... in my reform version, murderers, rapists and 2nd-time major-violent-felons would go there. Everyone one else goes to a facility whose express purpose is reform rather than punishment. If we're ever going to let them roam free among us again, they need their behaviors modified and they need a way to make a living honestly.

I agree in theory but from what I have seen of career criminals and gang members they are and always will be losers and parasites on society. There is no easy answer for these people in fact there may be no answer at all, the world has bad people, always has always will.

 

[Captain Adverse]

1. Reform: there's not a lot of it in your system as designed. If a prisoner is to be released eventually, then there ought to be a concentrated effort to reform him. (personally, I don't think those who commit serious violent felonies should EVER get out until they demonstrate tangible reform). They need job training, but they also need the RIGHT kind of socialization to achieve proper reform. Unless they learn to function as part of a social matrix, when they get out they will continue to be trouble.

This deserves some special attention. In my OP I mentioned several things that the “old Pennsylvania pseudo-system” failed to do. First, we separate the non-violent from the violent offenders. ALL offenders would have access to counseling and religious guidance, as well as educational improvement classes via the closed-net computer system. Non-violent and juvenile offenders, after an initial period in complete solitary, might at some point be allowed personal visitation with counselors or religious ministers if those professionals thought it would be helpful in reform.

Violent adult offenders? They remain problematic and really deserve to be treated as “dangerous” creatures throughout the term of their incarceration.

2. Solitary is rightly considered very harsh, and usually reserved for major problem inmates. I have no problem with making time-out-of-cell or time-in-social-contact a PRIVILEGE based on good behavior and evidence of reform, but making it universal could be considered "cruel and unusual" and may actually HARM the reformation of inmates who are to be eventually released.

The problem is that this seldom works for violent offenders, and even non-violent offenders would use the opportunity to “network” and perhaps “train” peers in further nefarious skills. It would only be “cruel and unusual” if it WERE rare forms of punishment. Historically solitary was often used for high risk prisoners (and prisoners at high risk of harm), and still is in the USA today. This also makes the inmates easier to control, and reduces general dangers to the inmate population. There are still valuable privileges, such as television access, movies, reading materials, and family visitation rights. I think it would balance.

The other thing to note is this makes prison a place people don’t want to go to or return to. Now, with gang affiliations and other prevalent criminal associations, prison is like “old home week” for many repeat offenders. Typically the newest “fish” have the most to fear. Spending most if not all of your time alone in your cell…THAT’s hard time!

Personally, I have posted a plan before with some similarities to yours, but certain crucial differences. One being that if you commit a serious violent felony, you don't GET out without solid evidence of real reform (the details of that would have to be hammered out by experts, I have some suggestions but I'll go into that later).

This I would apply to sex offenders and multiple repeat violent offenders. At some point we have to decide a person does not deserve freedom without showing they do. Your last point (which I didn’t quote) I think I addressed initially in another thread…life imprisonment in such a Stage III system is always and option. But I have no problem with setting up an “inescapable island” scenario and let it be a “survivors” prison for real! LOL

 

[Ontologuy]

Stage I would be to decriminalize most victimless crimes, and eliminate prison sentences for DUI (which would cover drugs and alcohol while driving). DUI would result in incarceration in a drug and alcohol treatment facility followed by a period of supervised release. This would significantly reduce, if not eliminate overcrowding.

What if the person DUI crashes their car into another injuring or killing someone, is that still a victimless crime?

What if a person brings a gun to the town square and starts shooting into the air wildly, if a bullet doesn't fall on anyone injuring or killing them, is that still a victimless crime?

What if a person DUI weaves in and out of downtown traffic, if he doesn't hit anyone injuring or killing them, is that still a victimless crime?

Reckless endangerment is a very real and serious crime, one that should not ever include trivialized sentencing.

What if a person sells drugs/alcohol to a minor, placing that minor at risk in these and many other ways, is that transaction still a victimless crime?

What if people know in advance that these behaviors are illegal because of the likelihood that someone else might be injured or killed by them, does the premise that "my addiction made me do it" warrant a drastically reduced sentence?

What if people so-sentenced to a drastically reduced stay in recovery treatment center simply do what Lindsay Lohan keeps doing: pretending, dodging, .. repeating? One day she's going to kill someone DUI.

And, by moving these criminals from one facility to another, isn't that just shuffling people around to multiple facilities in attempt to reduce over-crowding in another facility? Creating new facilities to end facility over-crowding is still part of the "over-crowded facility" complaint.

Drug and alcohol crimes must be taken seriously. Just because there's a lot of them doesn't mean we should do anything to reduce sentences, as that would be unjust to the innocent potential victims.

Prison reform is a challenging task, one that cannot be ideologically motivated if it's to be accomplished successfully.

Prison reform is really a secondary issue, a symptom, one that will be relieved when we solve society's foundational problem: over-crowded cities.

Get the population change rate to negative for a few generations and watch the "prison over-crowding problem" simply disappear.

 

[Captain Adverse]

What if the person DUI crashes their car into another injuring or killing someone, is that still a victimless crime?

What if a person brings a gun to the town square and starts shooting into the air wildly, if a bullet doesn't fall on anyone injuring or killing them, is that still a victimless crime?

What if a person DUI weaves in and out of downtown traffic, if he doesn't hit anyone injuring or killing them, is that still a victimless crime?

Reckless endangerment is a very real and serious crime, one that should not ever include trivialized sentencing.

What if a person sells drugs/alcohol to a minor, placing that minor at risk in these and many other ways, is that transaction still a victimless crime?

What if people know in advance that these behaviors are illegal because of the likelihood that someone else might be injured or killed by them, does the premise that "my addiction made me do it" warrant a drastically reduced sentence?

What if people so-sentenced to a drastically reduced stay in recovery treatment center simply do what Lindsay Lohan keeps doing: pretending, dodging, .. repeating? One day she's going to kill someone DUI.

And, by moving these criminals from one facility to another, isn't that just shuffling people around to multiple facilities in attempt to reduce over-crowding in another facility? Creating new facilities to end facility over-crowding is still part of the "over-crowded facility" complaint.

Drug and alcohol crimes must be taken seriously. Just because there's a lot of them doesn't mean we should do anything to reduce sentences, as that would be unjust to the innocent potential victims.

Prison reform is a challenging task, one that cannot be ideologically motivated if it's to be accomplished successfully.

Prison reform is really a secondary issue, a symptom, one that will be relieved when we solve society's foundational problem: over-crowded cities.

Get the population change rate to negative for a few generations and watch the "prison over-crowding problem" simply disappear.

Wherever in your list of "what if's" there is a "victim," then it is NOT a victim-less crime. It then becomes either a non-violent or a violent offense, and depending on it's seriousness prison becomes an option.

As for "other problems?" This is a single thread, impossible to address ALL of societies problems. One problem per thread please! LOL

 

[Goshin]

What if the person DUI crashes their car into another injuring or killing someone, is that still a victimless crime?

What if a person brings a gun to the town square and starts shooting into the air wildly, if a bullet doesn't fall on anyone injuring or killing them, is that still a victimless crime?

What if a person DUI weaves in and out of downtown traffic, if he doesn't hit anyone injuring or killing them, is that still a victimless crime?

Reckless endangerment is a very real and serious crime, one that should not ever include trivialized sentencing.

What if a person sells drugs/alcohol to a minor, placing that minor at risk in these and many other ways, is that transaction still a victimless crime?

What if people know in advance that these behaviors are illegal because of the likelihood that someone else might be injured or killed by them, does the premise that "my addiction made me do it" warrant a drastically reduced sentence?

What if people so-sentenced to a drastically reduced stay in recovery treatment center simply do what Lindsay Lohan keeps doing: pretending, dodging, .. repeating? One day she's going to kill someone DUI.

And, by moving these criminals from one facility to another, isn't that just shuffling people around to multiple facilities in attempt to reduce over-crowding in another facility? Creating new facilities to end facility over-crowding is still part of the "over-crowded facility" complaint.

Drug and alcohol crimes must be taken seriously. Just because there's a lot of them doesn't mean we should do anything to reduce sentences, as that would be unjust to the innocent potential victims.

Prison reform is a challenging task, one that cannot be ideologically motivated if it's to be accomplished successfully.

Prison reform is really a secondary issue, a symptom, one that will be relieved when we solve society's foundational problem: over-crowded cities.

Get the population change rate to negative for a few generations and watch the "prison over-crowding problem" simply disappear.

Frankly, most crimes that don't involve deliberate acts of violence, or deliberate acts of fraud/theft/vandalism inflicting disasterous financial loss, should chiefly be handled by "you must make the victim whole" (as much as possible) as punishment.

This principle already exists in Western jurisprudence, that in civil cases the object is to 'make the victim whole' as much as possible, or fully recompense them for their loss or suffering. IMHO most minor non-violent crimes should be handled in this manner if possible.


Repeat offenders and those acting in malice are another matter...

 

[Fisher]

It depends on where you live. We have a youth detention center so juveniles go there and a lot of them do better there than on the outside because of the structure and discipline. Juvie houses felons and misdemeanors. Before most kids end up hitting juvie, they have usually been before the Court a few times. I have known convicted underage felons to get a break where the Judge did not enter the guilty verdict at trial but punished them and upon completion of their 1,000 hours of community service and payment of fine, and completion of good behavior or whatever else the Court imposed, dismissed the case. I have also known judges who would withhold imposition of sentence or suspend sentences based upon successful completion of private treatment for a period of time in a treatment facility the family was paying for where the facility signed an agreement to report to the prosecutor and the court if the person committed any crimes or ran away from the facility. I have known them to do that sometimes with adults as to the private treatment facilities.

 

[Ontologuy]

Wherever in your list of "what if's" there is a "victim," then it is NOT a victim-less crime. It them becomes either a non-violent or a violent offense, and prison becomes an option.

No, reckless endangerment is not a victimless crime.

Firing a gun into the air and weaving DUI and selling drugs/alcohol to minors is not a victimless crime, whether or not a terrible accident/consequence occurs.

Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person(s). The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions.

There should rightly be no free-passes or trivialized sentences for reckless endangerment.

As for "other problems?" This is a single thread, impossible to address ALL of societies problems. One problem per thread please! LOL

No, once again.

Here you miss the systemic nature of the major problem of which prison over-crowding/etc. is merely a symptom.

The reason this problem has yet to be solved in a manner that maintains the dynamic balance between liberty and justice is because it can't be solved piece-meal.

It is part of a greater systemic problem whose foundational cause is over-population and population mismanagement.

These foundational problem must be solved, the only way to alleviate the symptoms such as prison over-crowding.

 

[Ontologuy]

Frankly, most crimes that don't involve deliberate acts of violence, or deliberate acts of fraud/theft/vandalism inflicting disasterous financial loss, should chiefly be handled by "you must make the victim whole" (as much as possible) as punishment.

This principle already exists in Western jurisprudence, that in civil cases the object is to 'make the victim whole' as much as possible, or fully recompense them for their loss or suffering. IMHO most minor non-violent crimes should be handled in this manner if possible.


Repeat offenders and those acting in malice are another matter...

There is great value in the "you must make the victim whole" concept, as long as it is within the financial or personal powers ability of the criminal to do so.

Reckless endangerment does not fall under this category, however, as the threat to the victim is to all members of society, both individually and as a whole.

In this case, and in cases where the criminal lacks the power to restore the victim's arm or life lost in the bullet fall, the DUI accident, or the minor's overdose, the "you must makethe victim whole" concept finishes a distant second in value to society to preventative measures such as making the act itself of reckless endangerment such as firing in the air wildly in the town square, driving DUI, and selling drugs/alcohol to minors, a severly punishable crime.

Just because someone can't myopically see any victims doesn't mean the act itself wasn't severely criminal in and of itself, and thus severely punishable.

 

[Captain Adverse]

No, reckless endangerment is not a victimless crime.

Firing a gun into the air and weaving DUI and selling drugs/alcohol to minors is not a victimless crime, whether or not a terrible accident/consequence occurs.

Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person(s). The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions.

There should rightly be no free-passes or trivialized sentences for reckless endangerment.

Once again, let the punishment fit the crime. If there is no victim, decriminalize the problem. If there is a victim, let my suggested Stages apply.

No, once again.

Here you miss the systemic nature of the major problem of which prison over-crowding/etc. is merely a symptom…These foundational problem must be solved, the only way to alleviate the symptoms such as prison over-crowding.

NO, I merely recognize that ALL problems cannot be addressed in any single thread. Furthermore, there is no point in diverting a thread down every little separate path people bring up. The issue I raise arises from an existing problem with deterrence, punishment, and rehabilitation of our prison system.

The various “systemic problems” in society are better addressed in specific threads discussing each.

 

[zstep18]

There is great value in the "you must make the victim whole" concept, as long as it is within the financial or personal powers ability of the criminal to do so.

Reckless endangerment does not fall under this category, however, as the threat to the victim is to all members of society, both individually and as a whole.

In this case, and in cases where the criminal lacks the power to restore the victim's arm or life lost in the bullet fall, the DUI accident, or the minor's overdose, the "you must makethe victim whole" concept finishes a distant second in value to society to preventative measures such as making the act itself of reckless endangerment such as firing in the air wildly in the town square, driving DUI, and selling drugs/alcohol to minors, a severly punishable crime.

Just because someone can't myopically see any victims doesn't mean the act itself wasn't severely criminal in and of itself, and thus severely punishable.

If I smoke marijuana in my own home, is that a victimless crime?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

If I smoke marijuana in my own home, is that a victimless crime?

The only thing habitual criminals understand is punishment and for this elite group I would make prison far tougher than it is today. No TV, no socializing, no gymnasium and constant lock down. Prison time needs to be so unbearable that these thugs will do anything not to go back, maybe even get a job.

 

[Ontologuy]

Once again, let the punishment fit the crime. If there is no victim, decriminalize the problem. If there is a victim, let my suggested Stages apply.

Here you betray your ideological influence in dealing with the problem, one that erroneously categorizes the reckless endangerment of firing a gun wildly in the air in the town square, driving while DUI, and selling drugs/alcohol to minors as "victimless" crimes.

Thus your proposed solutions will be rejected by the great majority of Americans, those not suffering from a pre-conceived ideological predisposition to extemist perspectives.

NO, I merely recognize that ALL problems cannot be addressed in any single thread. Furthermore, there is no point in diverting a thread down every little separate path people bring up. The issue I raise arises from an existing problem with deterrence, punishment, and rehabilitation of our prison system.

The various “systemic problems” in society are better addressed in specific threads discussing each.

Or, in other words, I busted your fantasy.

Well, if it's all that important to you as an exercise, fantasize away!

 

[Ontologuy]

If I smoke marijuana in my own home, is that a victimless crime?

If you do so in front of a minor child, and abusing pot is illegal, you're exposing a child to criminal behavior, and thereby may have committed a reckless endangerment crime.

There may also be other similar applications.

Best is simply don't abuse a federally controlled substance.

 

[APACHERAT]

In a different thread I pointed out problems with sending youthful offenders to prison. The same problems we have with adult prisoners.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...says-son-sorry-w-245-a-27.html#post1062185475

Here’s the gist:



Our entire prison system needs to be remodeled to make it a true deterrent, punishment, and tool for rehabilitation. This also applies to juvenile offenses.

Stage I would be to decriminalize most victimless crimes, and eliminate prison sentences for DUI (which would cover drugs and alcohol while driving). DUI would result in incarceration in a drug and alcohol treatment facility followed by a period of supervised release. This would significantly reduce, if not eliminate overcrowding.

Stage II would require separating non-violent and violent offenders into different categories, then predatory sex offenders for a third category. Predatory sex offenders would be diverted to secured psychiatric treatment facilities. All other inmates would go to Stage III facilities set up for violent or non-violent offenders.

Stage III would require conversion of all existing prisons and juvenile detention facilities into a “Separate System” format (also known as the Pennsylvania System); based on the principle of keeping prisoners in solitary confinement throughout their time in prison. No trustees, and almost no physical human interaction at all beyond periodic medical exams and daily feeding.

Thanks to modern technology protected computer systems on a closed network with no internet connection can be installed in each cell to allow contact with prison authorities. This would allow classes to be taught to groups of inmates who remain anonymous to all but the instructor; individual counseling sessions; religious worship sessions; and access to a library for reading purposes. One hour of daily exercise would be allowed to each prisoner alone in a small shared yard; centrally controlled access from a door at the back of the cell with alerts for each prisoner to enter and exit before the next is allowed into the yard.

Prisoners would do HARD TIME. They would NEVER come into contact with any other prisoners. Even the medical facility would have isolation treatment cells. Six months prior to release each prisoner could be given a skills evaluation test, and then offered the option of participation in a vocational training program based on their scores after release.

That’s my idea. Any thoughts or opinions?

Just want to point out that any time prisoners were segregated, separating the non violent from the violent, the black gangs from the Latino gangs, the first time offenders from the career criminals or institutionalized inmates the political left goes bananas.

Prisons are schools for criminals and wannabe criminals. In California's prisons the hardcore inmate instructors on how to commit crimes do a better job of teaching than the LAUSD teachers.
Even the not wannabe criminals who are serving time are heavily influenced by the professional criminals in prison.
You have to segregate.

As for prison overcrowding, Sheriff Arpaio got it right.

Arpaio pitches Tent City to ease CA prison overcrowding - CBS 5 - KPHO

 

[zstep18]

The only thing habitual criminals understand is punishment and for this elite group I would make prison far tougher than it is today. No TV, no socializing, no gymnasium and constant lock down. Prison time needs to be so unbearable that these thugs will do anything not to go back, maybe even get a job.

1.) Rehabilitation has shown to be more effecting reducing crime rates.

2.) There is the protection against 'cruel and unusual punishment'. So, you can't get too crazy.

3.) You didn't really answer my question.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Sorry, guess I'm a little backward, but this sounds like society spending a great deal of limited resources on individuals who have neither the desire nor the capacity to participate as contributing members of that society. Why not simply spend limited resources on those individuals who actually want to stay out of prison and contribute but may not have the means or opportunity to do so and let those who turn to crime suffer the consequences.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

1.) Rehabilitation has shown to be more effecting reducing crime rates.

2.) There is the protection against 'cruel and unusual punishment'. So, you can't get too crazy.

3.) You didn't really answer my question.

Rehabilitation is great for those that can be rehabilitated, it's a waste of time and money on those who can't.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Here you betray your ideological influence in dealing with the problem, one that erroneously categorizes the reckless endangerment of firing a gun wildly in the air in the town square, driving while DUI, and selling drugs/alcohol to minors as "victimless" crimes.

Thus your proposed solutions will be rejected by the great majority of Americans, those not suffering from a pre-conceived ideological predisposition to extemist perspectives.



Or, in other words, I busted your fantasy.

Well, if it's all that important to you as an exercise, fantasize away!

Now I understand why so many members talk about your methodology. You simply ignore points, continue to repeat the same positions, then declare victory where none exists. LOL

This thread is about "Prison Reform" i.e. dealing with problems once they are already legally adjudicated. If you want to talk about "social reforms," open threads on each one you are concerned with, and people can discuss it.