As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Prison Reform!
enlightenedbum
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
One of the consistently good US Senators, Jim Webb (D-VA), is planning on introducing a bill this spring to at least start a process to review our sentencing of criminals and to try to do something about the racial imbalance in our prison population.
Particularly nice to hear is his awareness of the problem of low level drug offenders being imprisoned being absolutely stupid and the inability of convicted criminals to get a job and become a productive member of society leads to our ridiculous recidivism rates. We have an insane number of people in prison generally, but those two things are particularly things that need to be changed.
I'm a little disappointed that this move would only establish a panel to look at the problem, but this is the first time a prominentish politician of either party has even looked at the matter. So kudos to Senator Webb, who I continue to really like and hope he can win his re-election bid in 2012.
To D&D I pose this question: what do you think we should do with regards to reforming prison itself, sentencing procedures, parole generally, and the opportunities/political rights of released criminals?
Somewhere along the meandering career path that led James Webb to the U.S. Senate, he found himself in the frigid interior of a Japanese prison.
A journalist at the time, he was working on an article about Ed Arnett, an American who had spent two years in Fuchu Prison for possession of marijuana. In a January 1984 Parade magazine piece, Webb described the harsh conditions imposed on Arnett, who had frostbite and sometimes labored in solitary confinement making paper bags.
"But, surprisingly, Arnett, home in Omaha, Neb., says he prefers Japan's legal system to ours," Webb wrote. "Why? 'Because it's fair,' he said."
This spring, Webb (D-Va.) plans to introduce legislation on a long-standing passion of his: reforming the U.S. prison system. Jails teem with young black men who later struggle to rejoin society, he says. Drug addicts and the mentally ill take up cells that would be better used for violent criminals. And politicians have failed to address this costly problem for fear of being labeled "soft on crime."
It is a gamble for Webb, a fiery and cerebral Democrat from a staunchly law-and-order state. Virginia abolished parole in 1995, and it trails only Texas in the number of people it has executed. Moreover, as the country struggles with two wars overseas and an ailing economy, overflowing prisons are the last thing on many lawmakers' minds.
But Webb has never been one to rely on polls or political indicators to guide his way. He seems instead to charge ahead on projects that he has decided are worthy of his time, regardless of how they play -- or even whether they represent the priorities of the state he represents.
State Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II (R-Fairfax), who is running for attorney general, said the initiative sounds "out of line" with the desires of people in Virginia but not necessarily surprising for Webb. The senator, he said, "is more emotion than brain in terms of what leads his agenda."
Some say Webb's go-it-alone approach could come back to haunt him.
"He clearly has limited interest in the political art, you might say, of reelection," said Robert D. Holsworth, a political science professor at Virginia Commonwealth University.
Webb's supporters say his independent streak will be rewarded. They note that his early opposition to the Iraq war helped carry him to victory over incumbent Republican George Allen in 2006. Two years after taking office, they point out, he took the unusual step as a freshman senator of authoring major legislation: a new GI Bill to expand education benefits to veterans of recent wars.
They say there is no better messenger on the unlikely issue of criminal justice reform.
"It's perceived as a great political sin to represent any position besides 'lock 'em up and throw the key away,' " said state Sen. J. Chapman Petersen (D-Fairfax). "With Jim's personality, he's never going to strike somebody as being soft on crime or any other issue. For that reason, he might be better able to lead this cause. He's a pretty tough guy."
Webb is a decorated Marine who served as Navy secretary under President Ronald Reagan. He has also been a journalist, a novelist and a Hollywood screenwriter. In an interview last week, he said his experience in the military, a culture that is "disciplined but fair," led to his interest in the prison system.
However, he believes it is his experience as a writer that will allow him to articulate a new approach.
"I enjoy grabbing hold of really complex issues and boiling them down in a way that they can be understood by everyone," he said. "I think you can be a law-and-order leader and still understand that the criminal justice system as we understand it today is broken, unfair, locking up the wrong people in many cases and not locking up the right person in many cases."
In speeches and in a book that devotes a chapter to prison issues, Webb describes a U.S. prison system that is deeply flawed in how it targets, punishes and releases those identified as criminals.
With 2.3 million people behind bars, the United States has imprisoned a higher percentage of its population than any other nation, according to the Pew Center on the States and other groups. Although the United States has only 5 percent of the world's population, it has 25 percent of its prison population, Webb says.
A disproportionate number of those who are incarcerated are black, Webb notes. African Americans make up 13 percent of the population, but they comprise more than half of all prison inmates, compared with one-third two decades ago. Today, Webb says, a black man without a high school diploma has a 60 percent chance of going to prison.
Webb aims much of his criticism at enforcement efforts that he says too often target low-level drug offenders and parole violators, rather than those who perpetrate violence, such as gang members. He also blames policies that strip felons of citizenship rights and can hinder their chances of finding a job after release. He says he believes society can be made safer while making the system more humane and cost-effective.
That point of view has gained steam with members of both parties. Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) recently proposed earlier release for some prisoners convicted of nonviolent crimes as a cost-cutting measure.
But the movement is alarming to drug enforcement advocates. Tom Riley, spokesman for the Office of National Drug Policy Initiatives, said it has become an "urban myth" that the nation imprisons vast numbers of low-level drug offenders.
People are often surprised to learn that less than one-half of 1 percent of all inmates are in for marijuana possession, he said. And those offenders were caught holding, on average, 100 pounds.
"That's a pretty different picture than I think most people have," Riley said. "It's true, we have way too many people in prison. But it's not because the laws are unjust, but because there are too many people who are causing havoc and misery in the community."
J. Scott Leake, a GOP strategist in Virginia, said there is a reason Virginians enjoy low crime rates. "[It's] because of the policies we've already put in place," he said. "If Senator Webb were to try to roll some of that back, I think he would have a fight on his hands."
Webb isn't known to shy from a fight. He said this spring that he'll introduce legislation that creates a national panel to recommend ways to overhaul the criminal justice system.
In his article about the Japanese prisons, Webb described inmates living in unheated cells and being prohibited from possessing writing materials. Arnett's head was shaved every two weeks, and he was forbidden to look out the window.
Still, Webb said, the United States could learn from the Japanese system. In his book, "A Time to Fight," he wrote that the Japanese focused less on retribution. Sentences were short, and inmates often left prison with marketable job skills. Ironically, he said, the system was modeled on philosophies pioneered by Americans, who he says have since lost their way on the matter.
Webb believes he can guide the nation back. "Contrary to so much of today's political rhetoric," he wrote, "to do so would be an act not of weakness but of strength."
Particularly nice to hear is his awareness of the problem of low level drug offenders being imprisoned being absolutely stupid and the inability of convicted criminals to get a job and become a productive member of society leads to our ridiculous recidivism rates. We have an insane number of people in prison generally, but those two things are particularly things that need to be changed.
I'm a little disappointed that this move would only establish a panel to look at the problem, but this is the first time a prominentish politician of either party has even looked at the matter. So kudos to Senator Webb, who I continue to really like and hope he can win his re-election bid in 2012.
To D&D I pose this question: what do you think we should do with regards to reforming prison itself, sentencing procedures, parole generally, and the opportunities/political rights of released criminals?
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
enlightenedbum on
0
Posts
Anyway, this is what I'd like to see, at least in California:
Eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent crimes - particularly drug possession.
Increase funding for non-prison drug diversion (aka "Prop 36") and mental health treatment options for nonviolent offenders.
Repeal three strikes laws or amend them so the third strike must be a violent crime.
Decriminalize marijuana and prostitution.
A freeze on all pay raises for correctional officers.
A freeze on all new prison construction.
Increased funding for public defenders.
A serious committed investigation into the prevalence of plea bargaining and the racial injustices in the trial system.
Community outreach and youth programs to help at-risk kids stay out of trouble.
That's not an exhaustive list. We're really fucked here, and it's going to take a hard-ass of Eliot Ness proportions to drive the rats out of the prison system.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't mind that they lose voting rights while in prison.
They should regain them after they've served their time, though.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What if the laws that landed them there are unjust?
That's unfortunate, but I don't trust that they'd be able to exercise their voting rights fairly and safely.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Are you suggesting that you think there is a fair chance that the prison administration would tamper or intimidate them into voting? I imagine that runs a higher risk of being a problem than it does normally, but it doesn't seem like an insurmountable obstacle.
Basically, yeah.
If you let them go to a public polling place, you run the risk of a security breach.
If you bring the polls to them, you run the risk of tampering or undue influence.
I don't think it's impossible. I just don't know of a good way to do it. And I don't think it'll help that much. Ultimately, there are other things I'm more worried about first. I'd like to see us work on fair trials and sentencing. There's plenty wrong with the criminal justice system in general in this country and IMO prison voting is low on the list.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If a prisoner cares, let them request an absentee ballot by mail like anyone else who has gone away for awhile. It's how they do it in Maine and Vermont.
Prison mail is screened.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That seems a decent solution, but generally I agree with Feral. I think the felons not having voting rights after release thing is ridiculous but while they're actually in prison I'm kind of ambivalent and would rather work on what I see as the bigger problems (where again, I agree with Feral fair trials and sentencing would be a tremendous starting point).
Edit: Screened on the way out?
Is there a macro for this? Or an emoticon? Or something?
Why wouldn't outside observers be an effective way of policing any tampering by the prison administrators.
Yep. Both ways. At least in California. I don't know about other states.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's mostly just assumed after Feral posts anyway.
But once someone has been released and gone four years without being convicted of any new offenses they should automatically be sent paper work to re-register.
What about the other dozens of millions voting for their immediate interests?
Yeah, I'm not entirely sure that this alone is a good justification for withholding voting rights.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
They aren't being imprisoned by the state?
I don't know how local law works in Sweden, but where I am the municiple and county prosecutor is an elected position, as well as the boards which dispose of the municiple and county facilities (including the county jail). People who are incarcerated aren't really the population you want tipping the balance in those elections.
In the states that do it, prisoners are registered absentee from their home communities, not where they are imprisoned.
For the most part, I suspect that this is one of those non-issues that creates a lot of heat, but no fire. Most prisoners would probably not vote and those that do wouldn't vote any differently than any other random citizen.
Our prisoner population isn't particularly politically radicalized. There are gangs and religious groups, but no Marxist/anarchist communes or prison identity movements.
Well, that only becomes a problem if you have a sizeable percentage of your population behind bars.
Oh, wait...
(and having to register to vote is a boneheaded system that's just asking for voter apathy, but that's for another thread.)
I agree that our imprisoned population should be lower and that citizens should not have to register to vote.
However, extending the franchise to imprisoned felons is not the solution to either of those problems.
Yeah, I'm not sure what percentage of a random county's population tends to be locked up all at once but it seems like it would probably not be a significant factor in the race. In any event, I doubt they're going to lose their grudge after getting released.
Which states do it? Maine and Vermont?
Far be it for me to gainsay empirical observations that it causes no harm.
Funny that you used the f-word, because that's another one of my peeves: the prison industry being an actual industry. They have lobbyists working for harsher laws to keep the flow of inmates steady to keep business up.
I am Canadian btw.
"Criminals are bad people."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It depends on the State. They can vote in Illinois after being released, for instance; some other states it's after parole, in Texas they're just happy to be released breathing.
Well, the are. I wouldn't mind disenfranchising anyone convicted of any sort of voter fraud.
So they should be allowed to vote republican......
Society's interests may be contrary to that of prisoners. Prisoners in California have health care so bad it was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court. Disenfranchisement can kill you.
Disenfranchisement should be reserved for traitors and traitors alone. Any citizen who has not directly tried to destroy the very foundations of this country should be allowed to vote. As soon as you start disenfranchising people, you start denying them other basic rights as well.
Frankly, I think it should be ridiculously obvious that de facto and de jure disenfranchisement is highly correlated with governmental abuse or neglect. Do you really think the homeless, who largely do not vote, are fairly and reasonably being looked after by the government? Of course they are not.
Once someone has no voice in politics, their interests will fall by the wayside even assuming no malice. But, of course, if we look at the Joe Arpaio (sp?) thread even here, we can see there is plenty of malice involved, and there are many thugs who would be all too happy to see every prisoner gang raped and then tortured to death. As a good indication of this, look at how socially acceptable it is to make prison rape jokes vs. baby rape jokes. How many mainstream prime time sitcoms have a character joke, "Better keep that baby away from Uncle Ben, or he'll fuck it till it suffers from irreversible vaginal damage?"
Yeah. Prison is an area where we really ought to make sure no one profits whatsoever from it. Society should genuinely have to answer the question: "Am I willing to spend X thousands of dollars per year to keep this person locked up?" If the person in question is a serial rapist, the answer should be easy. If they are a first time graffiti artist, the answer should also be easy, but different.
You could always try our system where the local council send you a form that you are legally required to fill out detailing the name of every person resident at that address (voting age or not). Keep ignoring them and you get a guy come round your house asking you who you are.
The council is also legally required to provide the electoral role to businesses if they want it and you have to specifically say that you don't want your details sold on to a third party to avoid this.
Apart from the whole "caging list" thing (and no system's perfect), your system doesn't look to bad from here.
Except for 17 year-olds?
In the case of minors, they are presumed to have guardians who are looking out for their best interests. But yeah, disenfranchised youth is at least partially problematic, which leads to them having less rights than adults. It's much harder to set a wisely considered minimum age than it is to not disenfranchise a class that is treated worse than many animals are (arguably a moderate portion of that is deserved, but I think any non-damaged individual can at least agree prisoners ought not be raped or beaten).
I would be more than happy to extend the vote to any emancipated minor however.
Students have no rights in schools.
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" ruling says no free speech rights in school, students can have their lockers searched at any time without their knowledge, no student right to assembly.
Essentially, students don't have first amendment rights in school.
I know you don't care, but it does show that people who can't vote get their rights taken away pretty quickly.
I think it's a bit sad that people say prisoners shouldn't vote because their interests are biased when there are those who can directly influence the government who push to put more people in prison for longer sentences.
If prisoners could vote nationwide then maybe politicans would start giving a shit about prisoners, and why there's so goddamn many of them