What would you think if prison inmates were required to pay for their stay?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,747
579
126
Originally posted by: Hardcore

Sure sounds a lot like slavery to me. You do something bad, you're locked up with no freedom, and need to do backbreaking work for no pay. And this is suppose to reform people how? Ah yes, because prison is a FUN FUN FUN place right now, and you want to take the FUN out of it.

News Flash: Prison is suppose to suck. Its a punishment, not a reward.

Its not a fvcking country club.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,747
579
126
Originally posted by: NakaNaka
Originally posted by: Hardcore
Originally posted by: Amused
I think prison inmates should be made to work and produce something and the proceeds go towards their expenses.

Korea has this... and the US was crying that it was similar to slave labor, and that it's not fair for normal companies that needs to compete with these.

Crying? It's true. It turns prison into a damn concentration camp. Tell me - what's the difference between that and the Nazi's using the Jews to make products during WWII?

The jews weren't criminals. Did you read your history book?

Thats a horrible example. What if we rounded up all the jews and put them in our current prisons? Would that be ok?
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Originally posted by: NakaNaka
Originally posted by: Hardcore
Originally posted by: Amused
I think prison inmates should be made to work and produce something and the proceeds go towards their expenses.

Korea has this... and the US was crying that it was similar to slave labor, and that it's not fair for normal companies that needs to compete with these.

Crying? It's true. It turns prison into a damn concentration camp. Tell me - what's the difference between that and the Nazi's using the Jews to make products during WWII?

The jews weren't criminals. Did you read your history book?

Thats a horrible example. What if we rounded up all the jews and put them in our current prisons? Would that be ok?

Well, that's actually a valid point. One of the few in this thread.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
When I entered this thread I expected it to be yet another ignorant and socially inept question from stefan resulting in endless flames indicating this to him. Dare I say I was hoping for it, in fact.

Instead we see immense amounts of ignorant and socially inept posts from almost everyone. Impressive.

The best prison system I have read about or seen was a juvenile prison system where the kids were allowed to play basketball and compete against other schools but only if they were well-behaved.
 
Nov 7, 2000
16,403
3
81
Originally posted by: NakaNaka
Originally posted by: Hardcore
Originally posted by: Amused
I think prison inmates should be made to work and produce something and the proceeds go towards their expenses.

Korea has this... and the US was crying that it was similar to slave labor, and that it's not fair for normal companies that needs to compete with these.

Crying? It's true. It turns prison into a damn concentration camp. Tell me - what's the difference between that and the Nazi's using the Jews to make products during WWII?
The jews didnt deserve to be there.

 

J Heartless Slick

Golden Member
Nov 11, 1999
1,330
0
0
The easiest solution for reducing the costs of imprisoing people: do not put people in jail for non-violent crimes, ie, drug use, drug retailing, prostitution, etc.

 

robertcloud

Banned
Oct 23, 2004
218
0
0
Prior to prison reform in the US, inmates were given out to corporations to perform labor. The corporations didn't pay them and worked the prisoners to death in mines without food or rest. This was not their sentence, and families of the prisoners had no idea this was happening. Because of this practice, there was an outcry for prison reform.

Prisons should NOT be treated like a corporate entity. If they are, you would see all the negatives that go along: capitalist bosses starving prisoners, etc.

Society incarcerated them; society has the responsibility to provide for them.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,237
146
Originally posted by: Hardcore
Prisons can and do limit these activities every day.

The more you talk, the more obvious it is that you're full of sh!t.

LOL and how do you know this? Again, how do they regulate all these 'disciplinary' actions? And what happens when you break one of these? You get more disciplinary actions? LOL

You may think that i care about what you believe, but i don't. If you really think you know how things work, then go ahead and keep believing it. I'm sure life is a lot easier thinking you already know everything than having to learn things.

Before you embarrass yourself any further, google this:

prison +"disciplinary measures"

The thousands of results will show all the different measures. Including the ones I listed.

These are all common measures taken. The fact that you think the only disciplinary measure is solitary shows you're full of sh!t.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,237
146
Originally posted by: robertcloud
Prior to prison reform in the US, inmates were given out to corporations to perform labor. The corporations didn't pay them and worked the prisoners to death in mines without food or rest. This was not their sentence, and families of the prisoners had no idea this was happening. Because of this practice, there was an outcry for prison reform.

Prisons should NOT be treated like a corporate entity. If they are, you would see all the negatives that go along: capitalist bosses starving prisoners, etc.

Society incarcerated them; society has the responsibility to provide for them.

Again, you ignore the very obvious and easily applied safeguards that could be implemented. Prison industries already exist. The idea here is to make them mandatory, and force them to be self supportive.

And why put "capitalist" in there? How many prisoners did Stalin and various communist and fascist states work to death???

Prisoners should be expected to work and carry responsibility... just like normal folks.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: robertcloud
Prior to prison reform in the US, inmates were given out to corporations to perform labor. The corporations didn't pay them and worked the prisoners to death in mines without food or rest. This was not their sentence, and families of the prisoners had no idea this was happening. Because of this practice, there was an outcry for prison reform.

Prisons should NOT be treated like a corporate entity. If they are, you would see all the negatives that go along: capitalist bosses starving prisoners, etc.

Society incarcerated them; society has the responsibility to provide for them.

Again, you ignore the very obvious and easily applied safeguards that could be implemented. Prison industries already exist. The idea here is to make them mandatory, and force them to be self supportive.

And why put "capitalist" in there? How many prisoners did Stalin and various communist and fascist states work to death???

Prisoners should be expected to work and carry responsibility... just like normal folks.

Normal folks are not expected to work and carry responsibility. They are expected to pay taxes and obey laws, that's it. If you are independantly wealth you do not need to work or carry responsibility. How can anyone make such an absurd claim when a person like paris hilton exists in this world?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,237
146
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: robertcloud
Prior to prison reform in the US, inmates were given out to corporations to perform labor. The corporations didn't pay them and worked the prisoners to death in mines without food or rest. This was not their sentence, and families of the prisoners had no idea this was happening. Because of this practice, there was an outcry for prison reform.

Prisons should NOT be treated like a corporate entity. If they are, you would see all the negatives that go along: capitalist bosses starving prisoners, etc.

Society incarcerated them; society has the responsibility to provide for them.

Again, you ignore the very obvious and easily applied safeguards that could be implemented. Prison industries already exist. The idea here is to make them mandatory, and force them to be self supportive.

And why put "capitalist" in there? How many prisoners did Stalin and various communist and fascist states work to death???

Prisoners should be expected to work and carry responsibility... just like normal folks.

Normal folks are not expected to work and carry responsibility. They are expected to pay taxes and obey laws, that's it. If you are independantly wealth you do not need to work or carry responsibility. How can anyone make such an absurd claim when a person like paris hilton exists in this world?

Even the wealthy must have some responsibility and work to maintain their wealth.

At any rate, appealing to class envy is an invalid argument.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: robertcloud
Prior to prison reform in the US, inmates were given out to corporations to perform labor. The corporations didn't pay them and worked the prisoners to death in mines without food or rest. This was not their sentence, and families of the prisoners had no idea this was happening. Because of this practice, there was an outcry for prison reform.

Prisons should NOT be treated like a corporate entity. If they are, you would see all the negatives that go along: capitalist bosses starving prisoners, etc.

Society incarcerated them; society has the responsibility to provide for them.

Again, you ignore the very obvious and easily applied safeguards that could be implemented. Prison industries already exist. The idea here is to make them mandatory, and force them to be self supportive.

And why put "capitalist" in there? How many prisoners did Stalin and various communist and fascist states work to death???

Prisoners should be expected to work and carry responsibility... just like normal folks.

Normal folks are not expected to work and carry responsibility. They are expected to pay taxes and obey laws, that's it. If you are independantly wealth you do not need to work or carry responsibility. How can anyone make such an absurd claim when a person like paris hilton exists in this world?

Even the wealthy must have some responsibility and work to maintain their wealth.

At any rate, appealing to class envy is an invalid argument.


No, in fact the wealthy needn't do anything. They can hire someone to take care of their money needs.

I'm not appealing to class envy. I'm providing a counter example. Making inaccurate blanket statements and then using a straw man argument to defend it is an invalid argument.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,237
146
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: robertcloud
Prior to prison reform in the US, inmates were given out to corporations to perform labor. The corporations didn't pay them and worked the prisoners to death in mines without food or rest. This was not their sentence, and families of the prisoners had no idea this was happening. Because of this practice, there was an outcry for prison reform.

Prisons should NOT be treated like a corporate entity. If they are, you would see all the negatives that go along: capitalist bosses starving prisoners, etc.

Society incarcerated them; society has the responsibility to provide for them.

Again, you ignore the very obvious and easily applied safeguards that could be implemented. Prison industries already exist. The idea here is to make them mandatory, and force them to be self supportive.

And why put "capitalist" in there? How many prisoners did Stalin and various communist and fascist states work to death???

Prisoners should be expected to work and carry responsibility... just like normal folks.

Normal folks are not expected to work and carry responsibility. They are expected to pay taxes and obey laws, that's it. If you are independantly wealth you do not need to work or carry responsibility. How can anyone make such an absurd claim when a person like paris hilton exists in this world?

Even the wealthy must have some responsibility and work to maintain their wealth.

At any rate, appealing to class envy is an invalid argument.


No, in fact the wealthy needn't do anything. They can hire someone to take care of their money needs.

I'm not appealing to class envy. I'm providing a counter example. Making inaccurate blanket statements and then using a straw man argument to defend it is an invalid argument.

The only strawman here is coming from you. Sure, you can hire someone to take care of your money, but you still need to be responsible and monitor that person... or you'll end up like Billy Joel.

Irresponsible rich people become irresponsible poor people every day.
 

yukichigai

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2003
6,404
0
0
Only after conviction, not prior, and only if they were entitled to a full refund with interest in the event that their conviction was overturned. Otherwise the system encourages rampant abuse.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,237
146
Originally posted by: yukichigai
Only after conviction, not prior, and only if they were entitled to a full refund with interest in the event that their conviction was overturned. Otherwise the system encourages rampant abuse.

Unjust convictions already payout far more than the plaintiff ever would have earned in real life. So that's a moot point.

And the idea here is to make prison industries pay for the prison costs only. Any excess profits made would be used for restitution or charity. No one would stand to profit.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: robertcloud
Prior to prison reform in the US, inmates were given out to corporations to perform labor. The corporations didn't pay them and worked the prisoners to death in mines without food or rest. This was not their sentence, and families of the prisoners had no idea this was happening. Because of this practice, there was an outcry for prison reform.

Prisons should NOT be treated like a corporate entity. If they are, you would see all the negatives that go along: capitalist bosses starving prisoners, etc.

Society incarcerated them; society has the responsibility to provide for them.

Again, you ignore the very obvious and easily applied safeguards that could be implemented. Prison industries already exist. The idea here is to make them mandatory, and force them to be self supportive.

And why put "capitalist" in there? How many prisoners did Stalin and various communist and fascist states work to death???

Prisoners should be expected to work and carry responsibility... just like normal folks.

Normal folks are not expected to work and carry responsibility. They are expected to pay taxes and obey laws, that's it. If you are independantly wealth you do not need to work or carry responsibility. How can anyone make such an absurd claim when a person like paris hilton exists in this world?

Even the wealthy must have some responsibility and work to maintain their wealth.

At any rate, appealing to class envy is an invalid argument.


No, in fact the wealthy needn't do anything. They can hire someone to take care of their money needs.

I'm not appealing to class envy. I'm providing a counter example. Making inaccurate blanket statements and then using a straw man argument to defend it is an invalid argument.

The only strawman here is coming from you. Sure, you can hire someone to take care of your money, but you still need to be responsible and monitor that person... or you'll end up like Billy Joel.

Irresponsible rich people become irresponsible poor people every day.

Not in all cases. This is such an absurd way to defend your argument that is is truly funny. According to you all wealthy people will naturally decline into bankruptcy if they don't constantly maintain every aspect of their money. No matter who they hire, if they don't monitor these people they will go bankrupt because no one can be trusted in the entire world. Even if it is the pope, or your father, or your father is the pope and it's him, their money is not safe.

Furthermore, this making sure you aren't being cheated is apparently what you call "work" and also "responsibility", which is something any prisoner would gladly do, and not likely even remotely close to what you were offering as a rule of society. If this is what you "expect" out of people, then I would say that you could donate $10 to each prisoner and then expect them not to be cheated, would that then qualify for what you expect minimally out of people?

Perhaps you meant that prisoners should be expected to do what average people do, even if average people are not necessarily expected to do this but do it nonetheless. If that is the case then I agree with you, though I also expect that prisoners should be treated the way an average person should be treated, and should have the same constitutional rights that an average person has. Neither of which are true.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: yukichigai
Only after conviction, not prior, and only if they were entitled to a full refund with interest in the event that their conviction was overturned. Otherwise the system encourages rampant abuse.

Unjust convictions already payout far more than the plaintiff ever would have earned in real life. So that's a moot point.

And the idea here is to make prison industries pay for the prison costs only. Any excess profits made would be used for restitution or charity. No one would stand to profit.

Another exciting statement from Amused. Unjust convictions SOMETIMES payout more, but sometimes they unjustly convicted get nothing at all in return. Watch The Thin Blue Line and follow up on what happened to see an example.
 

TimMyMac

Senior member
Dec 10, 2004
246
0
0
Originally posted by: Stefan
I think it would be a good way to help alleviate the costs if people were required to pay for their stay in prison.

What do you think about that?



absolutely, most people however wouldn't be able to afford it. you would have to make them pay there way with work, otherwise you would get nowhere.. This gets a little more complicated.
 

Gilby

Senior member
May 12, 2001
753
0
76
not every inmate does this not every jail does this and not every prison does this. There are thousands and thousands of ppl locked up right now that are just sitting around all day until there 1 hour rec time.

If that. You do realize that there are security concerns in some prisons, right? That there might indeed be a reason to, say, keep inmates locked up?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,237
146
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: yukichigai
Only after conviction, not prior, and only if they were entitled to a full refund with interest in the event that their conviction was overturned. Otherwise the system encourages rampant abuse.

Unjust convictions already payout far more than the plaintiff ever would have earned in real life. So that's a moot point.

And the idea here is to make prison industries pay for the prison costs only. Any excess profits made would be used for restitution or charity. No one would stand to profit.

Another exciting statement from Amused. Unjust convictions SOMETIMES payout more, but sometimes they unjustly convicted get nothing at all in return. Watch The Thin Blue Line and follow up on what happened to see an example.

An example of what? Adams was an asshole who sued the filmmaker who got him freed... and lost.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: yukichigai
Only after conviction, not prior, and only if they were entitled to a full refund with interest in the event that their conviction was overturned. Otherwise the system encourages rampant abuse.

Unjust convictions already payout far more than the plaintiff ever would have earned in real life. So that's a moot point.

And the idea here is to make prison industries pay for the prison costs only. Any excess profits made would be used for restitution or charity. No one would stand to profit.

Another exciting statement from Amused. Unjust convictions SOMETIMES payout more, but sometimes they unjustly convicted get nothing at all in return. Watch The Thin Blue Line and follow up on what happened to see an example.

An example of what? Adams was an asshole who sued the filmmaker who got him freed... and lost.

An example of people not getting a payoff for being unjustly convicted. I agree he was a jerk but he didn't make any money off of his wrongful conviction.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,237
146
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: yukichigai
Only after conviction, not prior, and only if they were entitled to a full refund with interest in the event that their conviction was overturned. Otherwise the system encourages rampant abuse.

Unjust convictions already payout far more than the plaintiff ever would have earned in real life. So that's a moot point.

And the idea here is to make prison industries pay for the prison costs only. Any excess profits made would be used for restitution or charity. No one would stand to profit.

Another exciting statement from Amused. Unjust convictions SOMETIMES payout more, but sometimes they unjustly convicted get nothing at all in return. Watch The Thin Blue Line and follow up on what happened to see an example.

An example of what? Adams was an asshole who sued the filmmaker who got him freed... and lost.

An example of people not getting a payoff for being unjustly convicted. I agree he was a jerk but he didn't make any money off of his wrongful conviction.

Because he sued the wrong people. :confused:

Do you have any info on if he sued the state or not? All I can find is his failed lawsuit against the filmmaker.