Are Today's Prison Sentences Too Long So As To Promote The "prison Business"?

[Springfield]

What about if you kill someone drunk driving...but it's just your "first offense?" Give me a break. I think the penalties should be even harsher for "first time" drunk drivers. Furthermore, if someone is stupid enough to drive drunk again and gets caught, they should face mandatory serious jail time.

You are proving my point beautifully.

We, as a society, automatically jump to the most extreme conclusions when we think of people who break the law. We assume that they will do the most harm possible and therefore should be subject to even harsher penalties.

What about people who text and drive or talk on their cell phone and drive? Should they be subject to mandatory jail time as well? I don't have studies to back me up but I'd bet that more accidents are caused by people talking on their cell phones or texting than drunk driving.

Where does it stop? The drunk driving example is extreme but it is valid. Why do we insist on putting more and more non-violent people in jail for longer periods of time?

[Bang]

Well, i  support life sentences and even capital charges for people who kill while driving drunk.

With as much knowledge as there is and with as much warning as there is, if you do it, as far as I'm concerned it's premeditated. You thought about it, and decided to drive.

 

It's only a 'victimless crime' if you make it home.

And then by the same logic, it's no crime at all.

 

 

~Bang

[Springfield]

Well, i support life sentences and even capital charges for people who kill while driving drunk.

With as much knowledge as there is and with as much warning as there is, if you do it, as far as I'm concerned it's premeditated. You thought about it, and decided to drive.

~Bang

I don't disagree, my point was more about those that just get caught drinking and driving.

A very small sample of drunk drivers will get caught, an even smaller sample of those drunk drivers will do any harm and the smallest sample of all of those will fatally injure someone (including themselves).

I'm all for locking up and throwing away the key the very last category of those people, but what do we do about the largest of the sample (the ones who merely got caught driving under the influence)?

You have people who would like to make punishments harsher, such as Special K, and therein lies our problem. We lock up more people for a longer period of time.

And that is just one law/punishment that gets a lot of attention. Spread this across what is generally considered evil by our moral compass and you'll get even more people to agree that there should be harsher penalties on everything!

Re: The victimless aspect of it. Same as texting and driving. Same as owning a dog that's not approved and could harm kids. Same as owning a gun that you don't keep in a safe.

This really gets into punishing people for actions that they could potentially take. Damages that they could potentially inflict.

Either way, game is starting. HTTR.

[sacase]

Well this could be it's own topic.  Other countries aren't as caring of their prisoners as we are, you know in most countries the serious criminals are just killed off, or prisons are so bad no one dares to live there, or the countries have not much form of a legal system.

I know in Dominican republic, if you want to eat in prison, your family has to bring it to you. But then again, if you want to live well, you can pay for nicer accommodations in such as TV in your room and a real bed.

[Predicto]

In California, we have had voter initiative after voter initiative making our criminal laws ever more harsh.  Mandatory minimum sentences, three strikes, ever increasing prison terms, you name it.  Each of them has passed after a series of terrifying television ads making the average voter believe that crime is exploding (of course, in reality violent crime has been dropping steadily for the past 30 years).   Because they are initiatives, they cannot be repealed or even amended by the Legislature.   We are stuck with them.

 

Guess what.  Every single one of those voter initiatives has been drafted and financially backed by the correctional officers' union, which is by far the most powerful single political entity in the state.    Surprise!

[Predicto]

Well this could be it's own topic.  Other countries aren't as caring of their prisoners as we are, you know in most countries the serious criminals are just killed off, or prisons are so bad no one dares to live there, or the countries have not much form of a legal system.

 

I generally try to compare the US to Europe and Canada and Japan, places like that, not to Iran and the Congo.

[chipwhich]

I generally try to compare the US to Europe and Canada and Japan, places like that, not to Iran and the Congo.

 

I could get into the differences between the comparison you choose but we would be WAY off topic.  I can assure you it has nothing to do with correctional officers union.

[Predicto]

I could get into the differences between the comparison you choose but we would be WAY off topic.  I can assure you it has nothing to do with correctional officers union.

 

What doesn't?   The increasing sentences and penalties in California are absolutely tied to the correctional officers union out here.   They have spent millions and millions of dollars on it.  

 

Or are we mixing two ideas here?  

[chipwhich]

What doesn't?   The increasing sentences and penalties in California are absolutely tied to the correctional officers union out here.   They have spent millions and millions of dollars on it.  

 

Or are we mixing two ideas here?  

 

I don't disagree with you there, just in terms of crimes in the US versus say Canada or Japan.

[zoony]

They passed a voter initiative a few years ago to give correctional officers in TN full pensions and benefits.

They also tried passing a .25% increase in the sales tax to go 100% to education, got shot down twice.

This is one area where conservatives are just ****ing retarded

[skinsmarydu]

What doesn't?   The increasing sentences and penalties in California are absolutely tied to the correctional officers union out here.   They have spent millions and millions of dollars on it.  

 

Or are we mixing two ideas here?  

And having to explain to the uninformed that "3 Strikes" is a bad law, especially if your 3rd offense is shoplifting a candy bar...and that means LIFE.  They try & turn it around, "all criminals deserve jail", they hate defense attorneys (until they, or their kid who did something dumb, needs one).

 

What was it?  A Democrat is a Republican who has just been thrown in jail, and a Republican is a Democrat who's just been burglarized.  Don't know who said it, but it's prophetic.

[Larry]

And having to explain to the uninformed that "3 Strikes" is a bad law, especially if your 3rd offense is shoplifting a candy bar...and that means LIFE.

I'm under the impression that "three strikes" requires three felonies.

 

[KingGibbs]

Could save a lot of money by revamping the judicial system. How?

 

Stop treating cases individually and have mandatory sentences for crimes committed. The bigger the crime, the harsher and longer the time served.

[LadySkinsFan]

We also have to remember that a lot of so-called felonies used to be misdemeanors until the vote suppressors decided that convicted felons should lose their voting privileges (that is state controlled).  So they targeted misdemeanors that are largely committed by blacks and made them felonies so as to supress the black vote because we all know that blacks vote mostly for Democrats.

 

That's how you get people who steal candy bars liable for the 3 strikes laws because you know that it's a felony to steal candy bars.

[Mocountyskins]

We also have to remember that a lot of so-called felonies used to be misdemeanors until the vote suppressors decided that convicted felons should lose their voting privileges (that is state controlled).  So they targeted misdemeanors that are largely committed by blacks and made them felonies so as to supress the black vote because we all know that blacks vote mostly for Democrats.

 

That's how you get people who steal candy bars liable for the 3 strikes laws because you know that it's a felony to steal candy bars.

I think that is a quite a big reach you are making.

 

Of course privatized prisons want longer sentences and more people. They get more contracts and make more money with growing numbers of people in prison. But at the same time privatized prisons operate in a free market which means that the tax payer pays nothing compared to a state facility that costs the tax payers money. 

[Larry]

I think that is a quite a big reach you are making.

 

Of course privatized prisons want longer sentences and more people. They get more contracts and make more money with growing numbers of people in prison. But at the same time privatized prisons operate in a free market which means that the tax payer pays nothing compared to a state facility that costs the tax payers money. 

 

Uh, I absolutely positively guarantee you that private prisons are paid for by taxpayer dollars. 

[Mocountyskins]

Uh, I absolutely positively guarantee you that private prisons are paid for by taxpayer dollars. 

How? can you provide me with an example? I swear I just did a report about this 2 years ago for a class and got an A. I'm looking up my paper and all my research.

[Predicto]

Could save a lot of money by revamping the judicial system. How?

 

Stop treating cases individually and have mandatory sentences for crimes committed. The bigger the crime, the harsher and longer the time served.

 

Wait, what?

 

That is the exact problem we are talking about.  Mandatory minimums greatly increase prison populations and the cost of the justice system.

I think that is a quite a big reach you are making.

 

Of course privatized prisons want longer sentences and more people. They get more contracts and make more money with growing numbers of people in prison. But at the same time privatized prisons operate in a free market which means that the tax payer pays nothing compared to a state facility that costs the tax payers money. 

 

Wait what?   Who do you think pays for privatized prisons?  The prisoners?   The victims of the crimes?  

[Mocountyskins]

I think you are confusing "contracting-out" and "privatized"

 

Contracting-out

1.If I am a county and I get rid of my prisons that are ran by the state.

2. If I the state then buy the services of the private company with tax payer money

That is contracting out.

 

 "Privatized prison" 

1. Does not depend on the government. They pay for themselves.

2. A privatized prison would get a loan from a bank just like any other start up.

3. They build the prison and agree to take on prisoners and feed and house them.

4. The prisoners do work for the state such as clean up crews and make license plates and other manual labor.

5. The privatized prison then sells the goods that it makes to cover its cost and also to make a profit.

That is a privatized prison.

 

 

I think that's whats going on, you are just confusing the two and mixing up the names. I'm not surprised it took me awhile to understand it also.

[Larry]

How? can you provide me with an example? I swear I just did a report about this 2 years ago for a class and got an A. I'm looking up my paper and all my research.

 

And you found research claiming that private prisons don't receive a dime of taxpayer funding? 

 

I'm assuming that you're being honest, and looking for numbers.  Had to look through several (several documents didn;t have any breakout of expenses.) 

 

But here's the 2012 annual report for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.  (PDF).  Page 21 has a lovely pie chart that says that 27% of the state's entire DOC budget went to private prisons. 

 

Now, I don't know what percentage of their inmates were in private prisons.  But that sure seems to shoot down the notion that private prisons cost the taxpayer zero. 

"Privatized prison" 

1. Does not depend on the government. They pay for themselves.

2. A privatized prison would get a loan from a bank just like any other start up.

3. They build the prison and agree to take on prisoners and feed and house them.

4. The prisoners do work for the state such as clean up crews and make license plates and other manual labor.

5. The privatized prison then sells the goods that it makes to cover its cost and also to make a profit.

That is a privatized prison.

Please provide us an example of one of these prisons which operate at zero cost to taxpayers.

[Mocountyskins]

Maybe its possible that the reports are just mashing "privatized" and "contracting-out" into the same category when really they are different?

 

 

And if you allow me to put on my tinfoil hat for a second I could possibly find an ulterior motive for this report! *Click *click buckling up the chinstrap and turning the dial for maximum "crazy"

 

I assume that the people who paid for this report to be done was the state government and not the privatized prisons. With the louder and louder callings of prison reform from the public maybe the state government decided to make a move. Maybe the state government wanted to start getting more tax payer money because they realized how much money they were missing out on with a growing prison population. So for public support the state officials make a big stink about private prisons and people being locked up for longer than necessary. The state is the one who paid for the report so they just have the two different types of prisons mesh together to make their numbers support their cause. The public see's the report and says "hey! private prisons are not actually saving me money" Ding ding private prisons go down and more people go to state prisons and the state gets more money.

 

It's basically the same thing as a report I have saying that private prisons are more safe than state prisons for inmates and guards and that the rehabilitation rate for private prisons is better than state prisons. We can use our common sense and know that these statements are not true even when an official report says otherwise. But you look at who paid for the report and then you see that it was done by the "Florida Correction Privatization Commission (1998). You can figure out that the prisons were not going to make any other claims because they also want to keep their money.

[Mocountyskins]

 

 

Please provide us an example of one of these prisons which operate at zero cost to taxpayers.

 

Well that would be the correct definition of a real privatized prison. I don't know of any that really run that way without doing some more research. But that was part of my point that people are arguing against privatized prisons when in reality it is prisons that contract out with the state that are the ones they should be angry about. by definition a real privatized prison would not depend on any tax payers for payment. My theory is that no one is correcting this key difference because officials want the public to start associating the word "privatized" with bad thoughts as we move towards a more universal and nationalistic government. 

 

But then again everyone calls me crazy.

 

Now that I think about it Natgeo did a piece about a prison like that in Georgia I think it was and they kept their cost down by having their inmates grow produce and build furniture to sell.

[skinsmarydu]

Could save a lot of money by revamping the judicial system. How?

 

Stop treating cases individually and have mandatory sentences for crimes committed. The bigger the crime, the harsher and longer the time served.

The problem is mandatory minimums.

[Predicto]

Even when the inmates grow produce or make furniture, that is just a bonus.  Each of these prison companies has a contract with the state where they get paid X dollars a day to house the prisoner.  Those X dollars are tax money.   The idea that you are posing, where a private company gets prisoners and just makes a profit off of their labor does not exist anywhere. 

 

In addition, your idea that there is some secret scam going on to hide the benefits of private prisons is classic conspiracy theory nonsense logic.  Choose a conclusion, then make assumptions to support your preexisting conclusion.   

[Springfield]

So I mentioned in the Obamacare thread that health care is among things that aren't best run as a for-profit system.

You can add the prison system to that.

Why do we keep letting people do things for the government at a profit that should be done to save as much money as possible?

Why do we keep contracting more and more **** out to private industry?

Oh yeah, the whole lazy American thing.