Convicts need a pay raise?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

We have to rehabilitate prisoners and give them something to start with once they are released or they are more likely to reaffend.

Well, we can TRY. The issue is, "What purpose should jail/prison serve?"

Should it be retribution? I think so. Let the punishment fit the crime. There should be punishment for breaching society's rules.

Should it be rehabilitation? Yes, that would be grand. I think it is something that should be tried with younger inmates, but with career criminals it seems to be a waste of money. There should, however, be efforts at education.

Should prison be deterrence? Yes, I think so. Maricopa county does that. Turn it into a place where you do not wish to return. I recall there being a controversy about human rights because of the heat of the Arizona summers, and the sheriff saying, "We've got soldiers in Iraq facing the same thing, and they are far more deserving." Prison should be a bad place where nobody wants to be.

All three are good goals. Rehabilitation is a nice thing, really, to think about. But, anybody who is involved in mental health, addiction, etc., knows that rehab can only come from a person who WANTS to be rehabbed. For those it should be available, but should we throw away resources on those who cannot or will not be rehabilitated?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

All benefits apparently not available to people who are not felons.

A shortage of subsidized vocational training for law abiding adults is orthagonal to the situation in prison.

Given a hypotehtical state which spends $25K a year (this is about right) per prisoner and a 5% state income tax rate (like Colorado which is now below 4.5%), reforming one prisoner has the same effect on your budget as increasing personal income $500K a year.

According to the US census, average earnings among those with highschool diplomas is about $27K versus $51K for those with bachelor's degrees; we could round that difference up to $25K per year.

As long as the prisoners being educated in prison have a better than 5% success rate at reform it makes more financial sense to spend the money there.

This completely disregards the non-financial gains from reduced recidivism.

[Scoop 0]

I agree, if they want to better themselves they will do it. They don't need masses of money. If they want to spend their time constructively to sort themselves out thats down to them. Its not like they've got better things to be doing. I would probably end up trying to learn something, if only to pass the time. There should be no carrot other than the prospects of living an honest life and being a respectable member of society

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Quote

All benefits apparently not available to people who are not felons.

A shortage of subsidized vocational training for law abiding adults is orthagonal to the situation in prison.

Given a hypotehtical state which spends $25K a year (this is about right) per prisoner and a 5% state income tax rate (like Colorado which is now below 4.5%), reforming one prisoner has the same effect on your budget as increasing personal income $500K a year.

According to the US census, average earnings among those with highschool diplomas is about $27K versus $51K for those with bachelor's degrees; we could round that difference up to $25K per year.

As long as the prisoners being educated in prison have a better than 5% success rate at reform it makes more financial sense to spend the money there.

This completely disregards the non-financial gains from reduced recidivism.

In lieu of this, would you favor Shock Incarceration, aka Prison Boot Camp? Less costly, similar reductions in revidivism...

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[Butters 0]

How about a carrot and stick approach. On the first offense they are placed into a rehabilitation program (carrot). On the second offense they are placed into a non-rehabilitation program (stick). On the third offense they are placed into ... death row (grave).

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Scoop 0]

Lol, the hippies won't let you do that

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Unless you have been there (as an imate, family or friends incarcerated or a prison worker) your opinion is weightless without merit.

Debate the issue, not the person, please.

The issue is the people. I have heard so many people say "fuck em, lock em up and give them nothing" without knowing the reality of what prison is.
To answer Steve, child molestors deserve the worst that prison has to offer. I would also extend that to rapist and most murderers. For non violent offenders offer them the choice. Most will take it. The ones who refuse will most likely offend again. Not much can be done for them. To offer nothing to all inmates would be most counter productive. If one can be changed then surely another can be changed as well and on down the line never to see them in court again. True some will return but for the most, never. Look around yourself, you have no idea who has been in. Most will never admit to it and live as if that part of their life never existed and go on to be contributing members of society. I did short time that was meant to scare me but believe that there could had been a better option. I made mistakes and payed for it. I guess I helped myself in the long run. Like I said, it depends on the person. Some are bound to fail, others need a shove in the right direction.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

How about a carrot and stick approach. On the first offense they are placed into a rehabilitation program (carrot). On the second offense they are placed into a non-rehabilitation program (stick). On the third offense they are placed into ... death row (grave).

Sounds a lot like the Three Strikes laws...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Butters 0]

With the difference being on the third strike you are really out.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[freethefly 6]

Quote

With the difference being on the third strike you are really out.

If the three strike law was used the way it was intended, no problem. Problem is that it has also locked up many for petty offences such as shoplifting.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

With the difference being on the third strike you are really out.

If the three strike law was used the way it was intended, no problem. Problem is that it has also locked up many for petty offences such as shoplifting.

While those instances are unjust, you have to wonder about someone who gets arrested on three separate occasions.

"Honest, your honor... I have no idea how that Xbox got in my underwear".

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

With the difference being on the third strike you are really out.

If the three strike law was used the way it was intended, no problem. Problem is that it has also locked up many for petty offences such as shoplifting.

I don't agree with what consitutes a crime and what consitutes a crime punishable by incarceration according to the law at this time. However, stealing is stealing (and the offender should know better than to steal if they already have two strikes against them).

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Problem is that it has also locked up many for petty offences such as shoplifting.

Shoplifting? Your blanket rule is that its petty? Even those folks who make it out or try to make it out of the store with $1500+ worth of stuff? Well, that's a petty offense according to you.

Remember, the 3 strikes laws that I know of deal with 3 convictions. Not 3 arrests, not 3 citations for theft under $50. 3 full fledged convictions. Do you think that after finishing up the punishment for the first 2 that someone would figure out not to steal?

I'm guessing you haven't had many things you own stolen or you haven't had anything that cost you a significant amount of money stolen.


Now, to the thread topic.

You know who needs pay raises?

K-12 teachers. Firefighters, congress...no, not congress, but the people that work hard make our society continue to progress.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[freethefly 6]

The 3 strikes law always reminds me of this case
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/28/60II/main527248.shtml
Not saying that he is an angel but does the sentence really match the crime?

In 1995 I was arrested for drunk driving even though I was not driving at the time. I was attempting suicide by gassing myself after learning of being HIV+. I refused the BA. The prosecutor trumped it up to a felony due to I had a dwi in 78 and one in 83 in Ca.. Had the state had the 3 strikes law I would unjustly be sitting in prison today. In some cases the 3 strikes law should apply, in others, no.

Quote

I'm guessing you haven't had many things you own stolen or you haven't had anything that cost you a significant amount of money stolen.

My house was robbed in 1982 while I was at sea (Navy). The guy got my Les Paul, scuba gear, stereo, tapes, tools and a crap load of bike parts but left my bikes and didn't find one of my guns. He did find my nickel plated 30-30 winchester. Detective Fellows of the San Diego police found my guitar and scuba gear in a pawnshop. Proof that they do look.
In 1993 my 85 3/4 ton GMC Sierra was stolen in Mississippi. Inside was a pistol, a shotgun (targets and bunnies), several knives, new CD stereo, speakers, a box of craftsmen tools and all of my clothes that I washed the night before but failed to take them onboard the railcar. The truck had brand new wheels and tires put on in Memphis. Never saw any of it again. I lost plenty.
Other than those two big hits the rest was minor shit.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

In 1995 I was arrested for drunk driving even though I was not driving at the time. I was attempting suicide by gassing myself after learning of being HIV+. I refused the BA. The prosecutor trumped it up to a felony due to I had a dwi in 78 and one in 83 in Ca..

Seems like your attorney would have brought that up and had MHMR come to your defense thus not letting a DWI charge having been continued in court. Would you feel the same way if someone else had a similar experience, but had been pulled over and arrested for DWI. Of course the 3rd strike deals with 3 convictions, not 3 arrests or charges.

Quote

Never saw any of it again. I lost plenty.
Other than those two big hits the rest was minor shit.

Ok. I'm still wondering why you consider theft a petty crime.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Richards 0]

Quote

Most will take it. The ones who refuse will most likely offend again. Not much can be done for them. To offer nothing to all inmates would be most counter productive. If one can be changed then surely another can be changed as well and on down the line never to see them in court again. True some will return but for the most, never. Look around yourself, you have no idea who has been in. Most will never admit to it and live as if that part of their life never existed and go on to be contributing members of society.

But the ones who are truly determined to change do not need to be enticed by higher wages for participation. The ones who will only do it for higher wages are the ones who are most likely to re-offend.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Ok. I'm still wondering why you consider theft a petty crime.

Depends on what was stolen and the reason why. Someone starving stealing food to eat. Make them work it off. Someone stealing a car (break in and hotwire), time. Carjacking, stiffer penalty. Shoplifting something small (even though it all adds up and the consumer pays), community service. Someone who shoplifts for profit, time. Other than the carjacker, which most times involves violence the three strikes seem to be way to harsh. Any crime that phisically harms a person, three strikes should apply as it would appear that by then they are not able to function in society and are a danger. The people who robbed my house and who ever stole my truck. I would say, serve time but would hesitate on giving them life in prison.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[freethefly 6]

Quote

The ones who will only do it for higher wages are the ones who are most likely to re-offend.

It should, maybe, be applied on a case by case basis and not just overall.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Depends on what was stolen and the reason why.

How would you rewrite the law to allow for reasons?

Quote

Someone starving stealing food to eat.

Even though there are thousands of organizations that give food away to those who need it.

Reading your reasoning I see, in your initial example of theft, that the law (atleast in TX) has been setup to allow for the different levels of offense.

The section I'm refering to is PC31.03 incase you want to double check what I'm saying. The short answer (instead of copy and pasting a chapter of legal-speak) is that the penalties for theft change in regards to the dollar value of what was stolen and what was stolen. This ranges from a class C misdemeanor to a felony. In TX a class C misdemeanor is the lowest grade of offense.

If a theft is commited with a threat of harm (i.e. using a knife or a gun) to take custody of property, then theft is not what is charged. A form of robbery is charged. Once again, I'm simplifying things for the sake of time. Burglary is not charged under the theft title as well, it has its own penalty groups. That includes burglary of a motor vehicle as well as burglary of a habitation or building.

(For those of you reading with an education in TX law I wanted to restate that I have simplified a handful of long chapters in the TX Penal Code for the sake of time).

Basically I'm trying to understand how you would want to see the current laws changed to allow further then what is already has been allowed under law.


As a side note a little pet peeve of mine: robbery involves taking something from a person. Typically by force or threat of force. Burglary is taking something from a secured location with out another person involved. So your house was burglarized, not robbed. That doesn't change the message of your post, just letting you know to help you out.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[ExAFO 0]

I like kittens.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[masterrig 1]

Yup! Give every prisoner a pay raise! How about, say... $20.00 an hour. Every cent they earn, goes into an interes earning savings account. The day that prisoner is released, he doesn't get one red cent of it... all that money, goes to his victims as 'retribution'! Like someone said in this thread, prisons are places of higher criminal education and the outcome is just better crooks. Shariff Arpaio in Arizona has the idea on handling prisoners.


Chuck

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Basically I'm trying to understand how you would want to see the current laws changed to allow further then what is already has been allowed under law.

Allow for a defence that does not have a limit on what can be called the defence. For instance, a cancer nor an AIDS patient can not use the medical defence to defend themself if arrested for a bag of pot. Seeing that only a few people here have ever had to use AIDS meds most would not begin to imagine how some of the drugs can make a person feel same as I have no idea how chemo may make a person feel even though I saw my younger brother go through it before dying and he was not a pot smoker untill he started chemo. Had he had been arrested he would have had no defence for why he was smoking other than the medical defence which is not allowed. The view of many is that this is unfair and stacks the deck in the prosecutors favor. The same can be said in other cases, not just in medical mj.
Honestly, law has far to much grey area and no matter what is done there will always be that grey area to contend with. I only hope that society can move forward in changing what is draconian and not slide in reverse to what was draconian.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Quote

Basically I'm trying to understand how you would want to see the current laws changed to allow further then what is already has been allowed under law.

Allow for a defence that does not have a limit on what can be called the defence...

No way. Far too vague. Too much room for exploitation. No one would be guilty of anything under this paradigm.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

No way. Too much room for exploitation.

I can somewhat agree but, it allows the prosecution to exploit the limit set. If my defence is that I needed food so as not to starve (providing that I was in an area where a shelter was not available) then that is my defence. By setting limits on defence then the defendant is set up by law to lose.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

No way. Too much room for exploitation.

I can somewhat agree but, it allows the prosecution to exploit the limit set. If my defence is that I needed food so as not to starve (providing that I was in an area where a shelter was not available) then that is my defence. By setting limits on defence then the defendant is set up by law to lose.

You're confusing concepts. "I needed food so as not to starve" is really not a defense to the charge of theft; it is more properly a post-conviction argument in mitigation of sentence.