Bristal, Mass. - Building Trumps Wall

[Sparko]

I wouldn't consider someone put in prison for not paying speeding fines a criminal and a range of other societal mishaps. Then there are a range of white collar offenses that may attract prison sentences that may not have directly harmed anyone. Then there are things like bigamy & polygamy that attract prison sentences in most USA states that may not have directly harmed anyone.

Some activities are illegal but not criminal, in the strict international meaning of the word = "an act harmful not only to some individual or individuals but also to a community, society or the state" and that standard definition is considered by the international legal fraternity as highly subjective. For instance: in Thailand you can go to jail for insulting the King (eg: drop a coin and accidentally stand on it). In Indonesia you can go to Jail for defaming/defacing the Quran (these offences are before the respective judiciaries at this moment). In the USA you can go to jail for unlawful assembly and/or civil disobedience....apart from violent crime or the plotting of violent crime it is all subjective. Hence my question.

At it's basic, a criminal is someone who breaks the law, i.e. commits a crime. Some laws are unjust and immoral. Breaking them makes you a criminal under that law, but sometimes that is a good thing. Being Christian in a muslim country could make you a criminal, but it is the right thing to do. Saving a Jew in Nazi Germany made you a criminal but it was the right thing to do.

But that is not how we were using the term. We are talking about criminals who are in prison for dealing drugs, stealing, committing murder, violence, fraud, etc. i.e. "bad people"

Yeah, I've read the due to the lack of support services and high unemployment in the states recidivism is a huge problem. All the more reason to occupy newly released prisoners with a worthwhile occupation like construction = building the wall.

agreed.

You are forgetting about the drug/crack addicts and street pushers, pimps, people smugglers and other undesirables.

no. I meant them too. They are the type that would be likely to be tempted to use a job guarding the border to smuggle drugs across.

Nope! And I never even hinted at such an absurd proposition. I specifically referred to trusted inmates being merged with existing authorities after the wall is built (supposedly the purpose of incarceration is rehabilitation not punishment).

As you suggested, some of the undesirables could still be used to build the wall, then either returned to prison or paroled back into the community.

I had suggested, that after the wall is built, those with good behaviour and prospects for parole be reintegrated into the community, either as assistant border guards or helped to setup independent small businesses along the border. From what I've read in the press unemployment, poverty and societal alienation are what cause people to reoffend.

And I think that while giving them jobs is a good idea, the jobs should not be in positions that might tempt them to break the law. Supervision or no.

Where's the temptation? As I said I'd partner them with existing authorities. Of course you might argue that the existing authorities are so corrupt that it wouldn't make a lot of difference, but it would make it easier for the existing authorities to pursue current illicit practices...

The temptation is that they would be the ones approached by smugglers and such to help them get drugs and contraband across the border. Or even threatened to do so because of their previous connections. Supervision might help but probably not stop it from happening. Unless you wanted to keep these people under 24 hour guard and then you just doubled your job having to guard the guards.

Robust debate is good, but why seek out obstacles to potential solutions? Better to seek remediation of a problem so the solutions can go forward...

I am all for helping reintegrate released criminals into society. But doing it with jobs that don't encourage slipping back into crime by putting them in an area where they would be tempted to do so.

[Cow Poke]

Thanks for that. I'll have to do a thorough read on the subject.

The theoretical plan I envisage is those with good behaviour and who would be paroled except they hadn't reached their minimal sentence could be reassessed by the court and released into a Federally administered work program building the wall. In short: released from prison and given employment in effect as contracted servants of the USA (soldiers fit this criteria also). Thus the prison system/s would be freed from the threat of any form of litigation.

Here in Oz as part of a rehabilitation scheme we let "safe" prisoners out for the day to attend Uni or participate in trade training/apprentice employment. Most follow the rules and are back in prison by dinner time (there will always be the odd exception).

I have an even nuttier idea --- when you go to jail, you get your choice --- "do you plan on being a model prisoner and comply with all the rules, or would you prefer to be in general population where you can do the tattoos, drugs, fighting, and act the fool?"

If they sincerely want to simply do their time and get out, they get a shot at the minimum security prison where they get treated like humans. The first time they show they can't handle that, they get dumped in with everybody else.

[elam]

I have an even nuttier idea --- when you go to jail, you get your choice --- "do you plan on being a model prisoner and comply with all the rules, or would you prefer to be in general population where you can do the tattoos, drugs, fighting, and act the fool?"

If they sincerely want to simply do their time and get out, they get a shot at the minimum security prison where they get treated like humans. The first time they show they can't handle that, they get dumped in with everybody else.

Apparently, your idea is already running in many USA states. In my reading I kept encountering a thing called "good time" - strange label - when I first encountered it, it wasn't explained, so I figured it meant special recreation privileges etc.

Now I know what it means, and apparently it is implemented differently in the various states and is usually not extended to prisoners convicted of a violent crime.

In some cases for everyday you don't cause the authorities a problem, you get one day deducted from your sentence, if you work you get additional credits. I read that in some cases, with parole, a guy with a 20 year sentence can with "good time" credits get out of prison within 4 years.

If you are interested, here is a Legal Firm's blog on Going to Prison in Texas in 2015. Scroll way down to the subject "III. Classification and Time Credits", then keep scrolling down until you encounter "D. Earning Time Credit"...Here is a sample of the intro...apparently the extent of credits earned depends on your classification, seems complicated so worth a full read...



_________________

Ooops! Forgot to include the url.

[Cow Poke]

Apparently, your idea is already running in many USA states. In my reading I kept encountering a thing called "good time" - strange label - when I first encountered it, it wasn't explained, so I figured it meant special recreation privileges etc. Now I know what it means and apparently it is implemented differently in the various states. In some cases for ever yday you don't cause the authorities a problem, you get one day deducted from your sentence, if you work you get additional credits. I read that in some cases, with parole, a guy with a 20 year sentence can with "good time" credits get out of prison within 4 years.

Yes, familiar with that. My problem, though, is that if they are in "general population" as opposed to "segregation" (from the other thread) they are still subject to prisoner-on-prisoner violence, and the other bad influences of 'fellow' prisoners.

I think there are people who do stupid things, and if given a chance to rehabilitate, would love to have that opportunity. There are others who are just evil people, and are going to continue living in crime. I don't think these two types of people should be confined together. The guy who did "one stupid thing" has to adapt to prison life, or be subject to horrible treatment by fellow prisoners. I think many people come out of prison a whole lot worse off then they went in.

[elam]

Yes, familiar with that. My problem, though, is that if they are in "general population" as opposed to "segregation" (from the other thread) they are still subject to prisoner-on-prisoner violence, and the other bad influences of 'fellow' prisoners.

I think there are people who do stupid things, and if given a chance to rehabilitate, would love to have that opportunity. There are others who are just evil people, and are going to continue living in crime. I don't think these two types of people should be confined together. The guy who did "one stupid thing" has to adapt to prison life, or be subject to horrible treatment by fellow prisoners. I think many people come out of prison a whole lot worse off then they went in.

Hmmm! I must admit I'm a bit confused. As far as I can tell, most prisons (if facilities allow) segregate prisoners according to their classification. As I understand it, all prisons (if possible) separate violent prisoners from the rest of the population.

I guess there are exceptions. We don't have county prisons in Oz so probably we don't have the same issues as Texas. Generally, most offenders are handled administratively and advised they'll be sent a notice to attend court. Though, most police stations have a holding cell until a magistrate (in regional areas often the police sargeant on duty) hears the case, then depending on the offense, the crim might get sent to a remand centre (located in Sydney or a major regional hub) to await the hearing of his case by a judge or released on bail.

Here in Sydney, the prisons of which I'm aware either have a prison within the prison for violent crims, or at least separate buildings for most rankings, or the prison is limited to confining certain classifications of crims.

I'm aware of one for low risk crims that has no outer walls or fences and runs on an honour system.

Another prison way up at Maitland is preferred by a lot of prisoners for its lack of hassles. Don't want to work, fine. You get to spend the day in the cage (which I'm told is a roofed structure surrounded by a wire fence. One guy I knew spent some time there, refused to work for the pittance they were offering, spent the day sleeping in the cage and then watched TV all night. Not sure how it worked, but apparently the prisoners cooked their own meals - the guy I knew said it would have been a bit like going on holiday except you couldn't go anywhere. Each to their own I guess.

Here in Oz our authorities have an inferiority complex, so they take instruction from international think tanks who tell them what is suppose to be best practice in whatever. Apparently, the government just loves to sign international agreements that often screw-up our society (ie: whats applicable in the EU, ain't necessarily applicable in a tropical climate).

I presume your authorities are often ham-strung by the same situation (?)