Healthcare Behind Bars

[The_Dude 1,142]

OK, fair enough, I take your point that you stopped at the 'building prisons' but really meant building, maintaining and running.

Now, if you actually talk to people in the prison service, what they want to see, what society as a whole should want to see (and most do, after all, a rehabilitated, functioning, working ex prisoner is no longer a burden on society) is prisoners re integrating into society and not re offending. Obviously, that depends upon the type of crime committed etc etc. It is a proven fact that simply opening the prison gates at the end of sentencing and telling the prisoner good bye and good riddance (or even good luck, whatever strikes your fancy) is pretty much a guarantee that that prisoner will be back again, placing that burden back on the good 'ol tax payer.

I am sure it would be nice, if simply sending people to prison guaranteed some 'revelatory' experience that would mean no one ever re offends. In reality those who work in this field know that those who are re habitable require a lot of work to get them to that point, which requires, well more than simply providing gruel and water and hard labour in prison and more than opening the gates at the end of the sentence to achieve. As I say, social history, interesting and informative.

citation or it never happened

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My wife's uncle works for the prison service in CA. From what he's told me a lot of the people he deals with at work are lifer's with some sort of gang affiliation (people who have committed rapes and multiple murders) who are too violent and dangerous to every be let out or rehabilitated.

Of course that begs the question about why some lesser offences end up with a custodial sentences being handed down - putting non-violent offenders into a violent environment creates more harm than good imo.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I think its all very well to sit back and try to justify this - but nothing about it is justifiable.

You clearly think that what happened to this guy is justifiable based on your dislike of criminals and thieves - and that because of this he deserved all and anything that happened to him. However you want to present it - your emotional bias has nothing to do with the fact that the prison authorities neglected a common (chronic) medical condition that resulted in this man being permanently disabled.

It is entirely reasonable to level responsibility for this on the prison services, who are entrusted not only to lock away offenders and ensure that they comply to a prison routine, but with some requirement of care of their well-being.

If we lived in some tin-pot backwater where it was perfectly acceptable to put people in filthy jail cells, make them eat their own feces and dole out regular floggings and electric shock torture - all of this would be moot.

But we don't. We live in a first world nation that sets some store in the concept of human rights - by which standard few things reveal more about a society than how it treats its lowest members.

ok your being dramatic, I never suggested these caveman ideas you mentioned. Explain to me why I as a tax payer should have to foot the bill. The issue should be addressed with the correctional facility and corrected. The prisoner though should not be able to sue, these sort of unintended consequences are his problem, he takes that chance when he steals. People should be fired ect. so that the problem is fixed.

Heres a question, do you agree with the law that says if you are helping with a robbery where someone gets killed, even though your not the shooter and had no intention of killing someone you could still be charged with murder?

Edited May 21, 2009 by looking_up

[Peikko 1,575]

Why was a custodial sentence handed down for "theft" to begin with? There's quite a bit of difference between grand larceny, burglary and shoplifting...

I think almaty said that one judicial reform that would serve well was a more rational approach to sentencing. I have a question about that, is sentencing entirely in the hands of the judge or are there at least 'guidelines' within which a judge can work? I don't think mandatory sentencing is the total answer, but certainly guidelines, or restricting the current guidelines. It does seem odd that petty criminals are lumped in with more serious criminals at the whim of a judge.

[_Simpson_ 250]

He could get a job then buy the items he wanted.

thats so old school, get with the times

[almaty 19]

Why was a custodial sentence handed down for "theft" to begin with? There's quite a bit of difference between grand larceny, burglary and shoplifting...

I think almaty said that one judicial reform that would serve well was a more rational approach to sentencing. I have a question about that, is sentencing entirely in the hands of the judge or are there at least 'guidelines' within which a judge can work? I don't think mandatory sentencing is the total answer, but certainly guidelines, or restricting the current guidelines. It does seem odd that petty criminals are lumped in with more serious criminals at the whim of a judge.

brother ,

in allot of states ....there has been a change in the process and i think, it is becoming more uniformed with prison population booming and the pre-sentencing reports being more involved...

also, allot of states, have a 90 or 180 days review, that is the sentencing judge based on psych examine and the prison reports, can reduce the sentence....

and the dept of corrections has steadily increased their # of "good days"..that is for everyday you do well..you now, in some states get 2 days or 3 off your sentence....\

finally, the parole boards have become more open to earlier release dates, as long as the victim or victim family do not protest

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That is a problem - it seems to be a general attitude that the focus in these places isn't on rehabilitation (because so many of the inmates are lifers) but on throwing away the key.

That doesn't bode well for people who are jailed on lesser offences - as we've seen in the "NY terrorism plot" that's currently in the news. Prisoners converting to radical ideologies within the prison system.

[almaty 19]

That is a problem - it seems to be a general attitude that the focus in these places isn't on rehabilitation (because so many of the inmates are lifers) but on throwing away the key.

That doesn't bode well for people who are jailed on lesser offences - as we've seen in the "NY terrorism plot" that's currently in the news. Prisoners converting to radical ideologies within the prison system.

there is allot of $$$ spent on rehab in prisons..hoping to be cost effective, at the least..that is the inmate gets a job..pays taxes and avoids being a burden on the state by criminal behaviro and incarceration////

seldom, is rehab opportunities not offered ...

include education...learning a skill and vocation, etc..

[Peikko 1,575]

If it's being offered, why is it not proving more effective? Is it the follow up after release or something more fundamental?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

From what I understand - the rehab options often aren't taken up by the lifers

[_Simpson_ 250]

OK, fair enough, I take your point that you stopped at the 'building prisons' but really meant building, maintaining and running.

Now, if you actually talk to people in the prison service, what they want to see, what society as a whole should want to see (and most do, after all, a rehabilitated, functioning, working ex prisoner is no longer a burden on society) is prisoners re integrating into society and not re offending. Obviously, that depends upon the type of crime committed etc etc. It is a proven fact that simply opening the prison gates at the end of sentencing and telling the prisoner good bye and good riddance (or even good luck, whatever strikes your fancy) is pretty much a guarantee that that prisoner will be back again, placing that burden back on the good 'ol tax payer.

I am sure it would be nice, if simply sending people to prison guaranteed some 'revelatory' experience that would mean no one ever re offends. In reality those who work in this field know that those who are re habitable require a lot of work to get them to that point, which requires, well more than simply providing gruel and water and hard labour in prison and more than opening the gates at the end of the sentence to achieve. As I say, social history, interesting and informative.

Hes blind, not so sure he going to be back, hard to steal what you cant see.

Some people cant be fixed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why are you fixated on the apparent idea that this man somehow deserved what he got?

[Peikko 1,575]

As I said, in your mind the punishment is entirely appropriate, the complete package, both the custodial sentence and the resulting deterioration in health. He got his just deserts. At least I know where you stand.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Why are you fixated on the apparent idea that this man somehow deserved what he got?

no of course not he didnt, but you cant make the argument that I should be held accountable! Mistakes were made and should be fixed but as far as the criminal goes, well its a chance you take in my book when you become a thief.

[Peikko 1,575]

Why are you fixated on the apparent idea that this man somehow deserved what he got?

no of course not he didnt, but you cant make the argument that I should be held accountable! Mistakes were made and should be fixed but as far as the criminal goes, well its a chance you take in my book when you become a thief.

Society should be held accountable for those that it holds in its care, whether in prisons, orphanages or wherever else. What do you think happens when you don't hold people or institutions accountable?