I'd be happy if we'd just get over this vindictive need to deprive prisoners of basic pleasures.
I've seen outrage over the idea that prisoners have access to TVs, or gaming consoles, or similar, stories of wardens confiscating books and pen and paper and such. I understand there are some other concerns that may warrant keeping usage of some of those under surveillance or similar (keep a pencil from being used as a shiv say), but other countries don't try and make prisons as miserable an experience as possible, and they have far, far lower rates of recidivism and violence and such.
Deb Alderson's Global Tel*Link is replacing libraries with locked down tablets that have e-reader apps. Inmates are charged a couple bucks an hour for access to the tablet and are limited to 90 minutes of reading time.
> I'd be happy if we'd just get over this vindictive need to deprive prisoners of basic pleasures.
I won't argue that there aren't some people who have such a vindictive need, but in most cases where I've had conversations with folks about things like this, it's more that they oppose someone having a similar (or maybe "better") quality of life to what they have, without working to pay for it, and rather being paid for by them. The opposition to these things in prisons seem similar to the arguments I hear from people against social safety net things generally. Not to say these arguments are reasonable, but I don't think vindictiveness is the primary driving factor.
Okay, maybe. Rather than people wanting the worst possible thing for prisoners because of the perceived harm those prisoners have caused them (vindictiveness), they want the worst possible thing for prisoners because HOW DARE someone else have something nicer than them that they didn't "earn". That's the same attitude that would begrudge a homeless person a donated name brand hoodie, because (you) had to pay $X for it.
That's even worse. But maybe the term should be different; maybe it isn't vindictiveness.
The US is the most incarcerated country in the world. We have the most prisoners, the most prisoners per capita, the highest spending on prisoners, and one of the worst recidivism rates (76% after 5 years).
What we're doing is -clearly- not working. The idea that we'd rather spend -more- than other countries, on a system that works worse, begs the question of 'why'. Why would we want to keep doing the same thing, that isn't working, -and- costs us more? Because we think prisoners don't deserve better.
Maybe that isn't "vindictiveness", but it's damned close.
It certainly isn't "I want to make sure my tax dollars being used effectively", or "I want the best outcomes from prisons", or even "I want to make sure they're only getting what they need to serve their time and then be able to come out and rejoin society".
It very much is "Damn the consequences, and how much it costs, I want them to have the worst possible experience".
IMHO the appropriate focus there is that whatever argument you can make in the form that "criminals should get a standard of life of at least X" would also imply that non-criminals also should get at least the same standard of life. Prisoners do deserve all kinds of things, but to be fair, everyone else does as well. And if you assert that a certain thing should be provided for criminals but you already have a non-trivial underclass who can't afford these things and have no plans to provide those things to the non-criminals, then it is a reasonable source of frustration for a honest poor individual who is being denied that opportunity - why is society abandoning them and is literally treating them worse than criminals, if they have done nothing wrong?
And it acts as an anti-deterrent if someone sees that they would improve their material conditions by doing harmful things and going to prison. There's nothing wrong with ensuring good prison conditions, but it has to go hand in hand with ensuring equally good non-prison conditions for poor people.
> It very much is "Damn the consequences, and how much it costs, I want them to have the worst possible experience".
To be clear, I am not agreeing with the position I am describing. Rather, I am trying to very specifically say that it is NOT "very much... I want them to have the worst possible experience."
If anything, I think the attitude I described may be more reflective of the overall poor quality of life (relative to the possibilities) that the majority of Americans enjoy in their day-to-day lives due to the widening wealthy inequality. For many people, who can't even afford access to entertainment like "gaming consoles", providing such to prisoners out of the taxpayer's till makes them question why their life is so hard and what they're working for if they could just become anti-social and get enjoyment beyond "three hots and a cot". Granted, perhaps it would be useful if more people questioned their lot in life and how we got here, but the result of that questioning for many is not high-minded ideals and calls for more equality.
You seem to be reiterating the idea of vindictiveness in your conclusion, while acknowledging that something akin to spite might be more causative earlier on in your response. I am not sure I'd classify exactly what I'm describing as either spite or vindictiveness, but it's certainly a dark feeling. What I'm observing is that many people are uncomfortable with the idea of prisoners having an enjoyable enough quality of life such that their own non-prison life seems worse by comparison, it creates feelings of futility towards life and engenders a certain type of nihilism. I think considering that people are merely vindictive or spiteful is an oversimplification that does not fully encompass the complexity of the human experience. You should also consider that many people who are in the bottom half of American society /know/ someone who's been in prison, or may have been in prison themselves, so it is not as if the realities of the prison experience have escaped these people. As you rightly point out, the US has the highest incarceration and recidivism rates in the world, and it's predominantly people who are "lower class" ending up there, mostly from a demographic standpoint the same folks who hold the viewpoint I'm trying to point out.
I understand their frustration, but I think it's a win-win situation to provide a nice life in prison. They get out of society so we don't have to deal with them and they also aren't subject to torturous conditions.
If the last two years have taught us anything, it's that being stuck in one place, even if it's your own house, feels pretty bad when you cannot go do something else.
My brain seems to reflexively get "bored" when they've announced any new restrictions or measures. I'm not sure bored is even the right word, but it's the best way I can describe it.
It makes me laugh at myself because I wasn't going to do any of it either way.
In this case, "spite". As in, "I don't want you to have anything nice, even if it cost me less and led to better outcomes for you and society at large (and thus indirectly me)". As in, "bite off your nose to spite your face".
>'s more that they oppose someone having a similar (or maybe "better") quality of life to what they have, without working to pay for it, and rather being paid for by them
This is very akin to vindictiveness, though. It's one of the most corrosive forces in American political life. *Someone* might get something they don't *deserve*. Bonus points if that someone is the "other" (Jewish, brown skin, Mexican, whatever). The right wing used this as a wedge issue in the 80's ("welfare queens") to make life miserable for the poor and it's the driving force behind a lot of anti-immigration rhetoric here and abroad.
Forced labor in a fixed geographic region with strict security requirements is fundamentally incongruent with pricing power.
I think prisoners should have the option to work and that they should be subject to all of the normal worker protection laws. Wages can go toward some combination of restitution and improving quality of life in prisons: food, lodging, entertainment in off hours, etc.
Restitution should be limited to a fixed percentage of monthly income (as it is in the civilian world). Why? Because removing positive reinforcement from the act of labor has perverse psychological effects. These effects persist after incarceration and contribute to recidivism.
This sort of system is insufficiently punitive for some, so the politics of these reforms are tricky.
Look up CCI in Colorado. They pay almost nothing for prisoners to work in industries like manufacturing. They then sell these products to businesses so they can claim it was made in the USA (so awesome!). It’s all slave labor essentially. Then, with the skills these people learn, when they’re released they can’t get hired because they have a record. Whole thing is a disgusting joke. Taking advantage of people that ended up in their situation because they never had direction or opportunities to begin with.
(Should mention they just got a new director and she is really awesome. Came from the women’s bean project. Hope she can make some positive change but she’ll have to fight a lot of bureaucracy.)
Forced labor is an incentive to incarcerate more people. Incarceration should not be profitable.
It would be better to give them daily education, therapy, recreation, etc. They have piloted such programs in the US with a lot of success at preventing recidivism.
All of this can save costs in the long run. Paying for prison security, medical costs, maintenance, turnover, and recidivism is extremely expensive.
“The going rate” will be low, because of market dynamics. Either you need a prisoners' minimum wage, or you need to not do that; people do still have rights even if they've committed crimes.
Put them in education, give them food and shelter, and they'll be better able to contribute to society when they get out.
They should have the option of school or work, with a minimum GPA required to stay in school. The biggest issue will be supervision of the grading to ensure it's not being abused either to punish people who are doing well or to let people off who aren't actually doing their work.
I’d pass on the forced labor part, but make work at a going rate optional. Bring separated from everyone and everything you love is punishment enough in many cases.
If you pay them the market rate and this activity improves their well-being compared to being sedentary, I think it’s a win for all involved.