Prison Nation [long] [image heavy]

[Edi]

Another reminder: Keep the peanut gallery bullshit the fuck out of this thread. If I see any more of it, I will start handing out warnings and sending posts to the bottom of the barrel.

Sometimes threads go several days without a reply when we're talking substantive real issues that are not the daily evolving headline stuff and the forum membership would do well to keep that in mind. You have, or should have, longer attention spans than an average gnat. Though what I've seen in this thread has not left me impressed.

[Jeremy]

I've done maintenance work in low income housing twice the size of this prison cell and comparably furnished.

Well, yes. So?

On the one hand, you can live in a room that size or not much larger; you wouldn't want to but you can. On the other, why should criminals get really shitty living conditions? Does this actually make them less dangerous to society or anything?

A jail cell in Finland has equal living conditions as some of America's free. Well, yes, so why should free people get really shitty living conditions?

[loomer]

Pretty sure no one said they should, Jeremy, just that prisoners shouldn't be either.

[Zaune]

Anyone else read the original post and think, "damn good incentive to resist arrest with a deadly weapon"?

[Coyote]

Anyone else read the original post and think, "damn good incentive to resist arrest with a deadly weapon"?

Actually, due to the "3 strikes" rule, I've heard people theorize that a 3rd-time felon will actually resist far more violently and vigorously as the cops close in. I've never seen anything to back it, though.

[Eleas]

Anyone else read the original post and think, "damn good incentive to resist arrest with a deadly weapon"?

Actually, due to the "3 strikes" rule, I've heard people theorize that a 3rd-time felon will actually resist far more violently and vigorously as the cops close in. I've never seen anything to back it, though.

Well, it does sound like it might follow, but then again, it might not. I'm thinking that there's a difference between thinking "prison life is shit, so I'm not going quietly" and "shit, if they catch me now, they're probably going to apply the three strikes rule". If nothing else, then because humans are so good at wishful thinking.

[SVPD]

Anyone else read the original post and think, "damn good incentive to resist arrest with a deadly weapon"?

Actually, due to the "3 strikes" rule, I've heard people theorize that a 3rd-time felon will actually resist far more violently and vigorously as the cops close in. I've never seen anything to back it, though.

I'm aware of anecdotal incidents of felons who knew they were going back to prison resisting with extreme violence (this is from training films; we know the reason because after they catch the guy they interview him and since it's too late for him anyhow he just tells them) but I do not know if these were parole violators, 3-strikers, or just people with extensive records wanted for a severe crime.

[Alyeska]

Good to know that he has buddies like Alyeska to cover his ass every time he wants to duck out...

Excuse me? You can shut the fuck up now. This is not a friendly warning.

We have rules on this forum.

PR6: Do not "Pile On". Also known as the "me too" or "dogpiling" rule. Don't post in threads just to say you agree or disagree with someone, or that you like or dislike something, without bothering to explain why. Put some effort into your posts.

I told you people to back off Shep and let him argue. I didn't tell you to stop debating with him.

So take your whiny bullshit attitude and do something unpleasant with it.

And now my favorite part. I see AR2 and AR3 violations in here.

AR2: The Rules Are The Rules. If you dislike our forum's policies, either keep it to yourself or leave. This is our forum, these are our rules, and if you don't like it, there are plenty of other forums out there.

AR3: Leave The Staff Alone. Keep in mind that the moderators and administrators are unpaid volunteers with their own lives and demands on their time, and they do not need to be whined at every time a user thinks poorly of them or their actions. If you believe you have a serious grievance, you should use the PM button to contact a different staff member. If you have an issue with a moderator, contact a supermoderator. If you have an issue with a supermoderator, talk to an administrator. If you have an issue with an administrator, contact Darth Wong. If you have an issue with Darth Wong, get lost.

Norade and The Yosemite Bear are both in violation of AR2 and AR3. I will talk with the other moderators to determine the proper course of action.

[PainRack]

With regards to mental health, one should remember that the movement was aimed at removing a situation where mentally ill people were placed in vulnerable situations of abuse, neglect and abandonment.

Its a bit difficult to search for online sources at the moment for me, but consider this. there were 870 hundred thousand people committed to such insitutions, with no access to trained doctors and staff due to lack of funding. They are abandoned by family which means once in, they will NEVER leave. The goal of healthcare changed from simply caring and protecting mentally ill patients and others to reintergating them back into society as useful members.

Flawed execution, but well intended goals.

[Simon_Jester]

That works well as long as the option of reintegration are there.

But if a mentally ill person is committing crimes, you can't reintegrate them by letting them live at home and treating them with weekly therapy sessions and meds; there's a legitimate need to punish crimes. So you're stuck either putting them in jail (where they're guarded by people who lack the training to handle them except by beating them into compliance), or putting them in a mental hospital (which requires physical space in the hospital for the subject).

So I do see it being a problem.

[eion]

That works well as long as the option of reintegration are there.

But if a mentally ill person is committing crimes, you can't reintegrate them by letting them live at home and treating them with weekly therapy sessions and meds; there's a legitimate need to punish crimes. So you're stuck either putting them in jail (where they're guarded by people who lack the training to handle them except by beating them into compliance), or putting them in a mental hospital (which requires physical space in the hospital for the subject).

So I do see it being a problem.

If the mental illness is affecting their judgment, thereby removing their ability to determine morally appropriate actions, how can they be held liable for their crimes?

Diminished capacity is a legitimate legal defense.

[MKSheppard]

edit : rewriting some bits.

[Simon_Jester]

That works well as long as the option of reintegration are there.

But if a mentally ill person is committing crimes, you can't reintegrate them by letting them live at home and treating them with weekly therapy sessions and meds; there's a legitimate need to punish crimes. So you're stuck either putting them in jail (where they're guarded by people who lack the training to handle them except by beating them into compliance), or putting them in a mental hospital (which requires physical space in the hospital for the subject).

So I do see it being a problem.

If the mental illness is affecting their judgment, thereby removing their ability to determine morally appropriate actions, how can they be held liable for their crimes?

Diminished capacity is a legitimate legal defense.

Yes, and when it's applied the proper verdict is "not guilty by reason of insanity." People found not guilty by reason of insanity go to mental hospitals... which depends on enough hospitals existing to put them in.

[eion]

Yes, and when it's applied the proper verdict is "not guilty by reason of insanity." People found not guilty by reason of insanity go to mental hospitals... which depends on enough hospitals existing to put them in.

Yes, and they go there to be cured (if possible) and released, not to be punished because legally they are not guilty of commiting a crime.

It all comes back to the desire to punish winning over the need to rehabilite. It feels good to punish, but it does more good to rehabiliate.

[Instant Sunrise]

WRT the issue of Reagan closing mental hospitals, I WAS incorrect regarding his actions as president. So yes, President Reagan did not close many mental hospitals, although he did block efforts to reopen or open new ones.

However, in California at least he did close mental institutions as Governor.

Also, according to a 2006 report by the Human Rights Watch, 50% of the prison population shows symptoms of mental illness. Compared to the 10% of the general adult population.

So yes, the Mentally Ill in prisons is a huge problem.

[MKSheppard]

1. That isnt what they're talking about in the article.

I'm sorry; but the article is just not that helpful, as I said before; about what context the punishment is used in, and where it fits in the punishment/discipline system used by the correctional institution.

In MoCo Corrections, punishments ranged from being confined to your cell all day to outright being moved to the segreated lockdown unit within the jail.

Remember, that you can't just wail on a prisoner anymore with a nightstick as a method of correction/discipline anymore. So you have to find other corrective measures.

If you are already in a supermax prison; how the hell do you discipline someone?

They're already in lockup all day!

I suppose you can disconnect and seize their in-cell televisions (this seems to be done at Red Onion) and restrict their use of letters or library books for the lower grade infractions; but what do you do when they do a higher level infraction?

You can then move them from General Population to Segration.

But what happens if the person continues to be a total asshat in Segration? How do you discipline him when you've taken away all the other things?

From reading around, it seems that the standard procedure in Supermaxes is immobilizing the prisoner, whether in restraint chairs, or the aforementioned spreadeagle; since it's sufficiently irritating to the prisoner that they want to avoid it, yet does not rise to the level of physical correction used in the past before prison reforms.

The original screed that Instant Sunrise Posted on RED ONION had this gem:

Life in segregation is even more restrictive. Nobody really knows how many inmates are in segregation because the facilities don't disclose it.

The Human Rights Watch Report LINK even has a cite of how many people are in segration at Red Onion:

Code: Select all

 We do not have a precise figure for the number of inmates in segregation at Red Onion. We have been told variously that the figure is anywhere from 200 to over 300.

Which is actually reasonble -- no precise figure can be given, since the population in administrative segregation (or protective custody as it was termed in MoCo) fluctuates as people go in and out.

Segregation in Virginia is indefinite. DOC policies provide no guidance on permissible length of time in segregation. Inmates do not know what, if anything, they can do to secure their release to general population.

Actually they do. Every 30 days or so, there's apparently a 'general review' apparently by someone from the administrative office who meets with the prisoner. The prisoner can then ask them: "Hey man, how do I get out of here, I shalt not sin again."

Human Rights Watch has issued a scathing report on the human rights violations at Red Onion.

If you follow his , and start reading it; you'll find that Red Onion is actually quite standard for a modern (built the last 25 years) correctional facility in the United States.

The only real digressions from standard practices are due to it's role as a super-maximum prison for disruptive, assaultive, severe behavior problems, predatory-type behavior, escape risk inmates, and so the security level is much higher; and various little goodies that an inmate in a lower security facility can enjoy, like a subscription to a magazine -- aren't available.

2. That story doesn't really help, it just shows how fucked the system is since that sounds like a serious mental health issue...which gee, might be best addressed with psych treatment rather than chaining the person in the corner.

He WAS receiving psych treatment. See; this all occured in the Crisis Intervention Unit (CIU) - IOW the specialized mental health wing devoted "to emotionally and cognitively dysregulated inmates who are prone to self-injury and suicide attempts".

The big problem is -- how do you prevent someone from injuring themselves if they really, really, really want to do it? The only reliable way is to immobilize them and deploy (optionally) tongue guards.

[PainRack]

That works well as long as the option of reintegration are there.

But if a mentally ill person is committing crimes, you can't reintegrate them by letting them live at home and treating them with weekly therapy sessions and meds; there's a legitimate need to punish crimes. So you're stuck either putting them in jail (where they're guarded by people who lack the training to handle them except by beating them into compliance), or putting them in a mental hospital (which requires physical space in the hospital for the subject).

So I do see it being a problem.

Not really. It really depends on why the crime is being committed, isn't it?
Its entirely possible for a criminal to be treated in a prison via visiting or attached medical personnel.
On the other hand, if the criminal act is due to an acute episode of say psychosis resulting in paranoia, admission before eventual discharge is obviously the preferred option.

Let's just really remember that its only in the last 4 decades or so that mental institutions became centres of medical care and treatment. Quick google shows these figures
http://www.enotes.com/1950-medicine-hea ... al-illness
47 hundred psychiatrists.... PBS gives a figure of 560 thousand people being treated in America.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/nash/timel ... line2.html

Similarly, nurse ratios were equivalent to Nightingale era in the Crimean war and IIRC, most such figures include nursing assistant/aides with trained staff.

That and of course, real, effective anti psychotic drugs which promises cures. The only real caveat was that for say schizophrenia, you need to continously take them for a year or longer,up to a lifetime for some. Anti depressants remove the danger of self harm and allow depressed people to reintergrate into society. And etc etc etc.

Complaining that there was a lack of hospital beds because of counter-culture misses the fact that the only reason why there was so many beds was because patients were being cramped into unsanitary conditions with little to no care beyond basic needs. That, and the ubiquitous use of physical and chemical restraints, a chapter which deserves its own discussion by a specialist.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, and when it's applied the proper verdict is "not guilty by reason of insanity." People found not guilty by reason of insanity go to mental hospitals... which depends on enough hospitals existing to put them in.

Yes, and they go there to be cured (if possible) and released, not to be punished because legally they are not guilty of commiting a crime.

It all comes back to the desire to punish winning over the need to rehabilite. It feels good to punish, but it does more good to rehabiliate.

Granted. "Punish" was a stupid choice of words, I retract that.

But there remains a need to do something about crime and criminals- something that will prevent further crime. Rehabilitation is far and away the best choice, but the odds of a mentally ill person being rehabilitated in a jail, even a good one, are poor.

You've got to treat them somewhere. Where are the facilities where this is to be done? In the prisons (in which case you'll see people being strapped to tables in padded cells because otherwise they'll have an episode and kill themselves in the prisons)? Or in the mental hospitals? Do mental hospitals normally not need extreme physical restraint for even a small fraction of inmates?

[PainRack]

But there remains a need to do something about crime and criminals- something that will prevent further crime. Rehabilitation is far and away the best choice, but the odds of a mentally ill person being rehabilitated in a jail, even a good one, are poor.

In WHAT sense? I have no idea what the US situation is, but the crimes in my local context are usually trespassing, harassment or acts of violence/bullying, endangerment of self or others.

As for rehab, a good prison system can do that. What do you think treatment consists of? Taking pills and daily activities meant to intergrate yourself with others. A good prison system with rehab services such as workshops, educational services and etc all do the same thing. They have special needs? So do violent prisoners and drug dependent people.

The issues are with practical ones. The US population is too large, the prison population is too large and etc etc etc etc. Not with theoretical situations such as how all mentally ill people should go to a mental institution.

Yes. It is desirable that the US pays more attention to mental health. The majority of the world would benefit from it too. But your argument doesn't hold merit on its own basis, mainly, that prisons cannot have the medical facillities required to treat the mentally ill and as such, they should be decanted to mental institutions.

[Simon_Jester]

But there remains a need to do something about crime and criminals- something that will prevent further crime. Rehabilitation is far and away the best choice, but the odds of a mentally ill person being rehabilitated in a jail, even a good one, are poor.

In WHAT sense? I have no idea what the US situation is, but the crimes in my local context are usually trespassing, harassment or acts of violence/bullying, endangerment of self or others.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

As for rehab, a good prison system can do that. What do you think treatment consists of? Taking pills and daily activities meant to intergrate yourself with others. A good prison system with rehab services such as workshops, educational services and etc all do the same thing. They have special needs? So do violent prisoners and drug dependent people.

The issues are with practical ones. The US population is too large, the prison population is too large and etc etc etc etc. Not with theoretical situations such as how all mentally ill people should go to a mental institution.

Yes. It is desirable that the US pays more attention to mental health. The majority of the world would benefit from it too. But your argument doesn't hold merit on its own basis, mainly, that prisons cannot have the medical facillities required to treat the mentally ill and as such, they should be decanted to mental institutions.

I don't think that was my argument.

My argument is that if prisons are to contain mentally ill inmates, then they need some latitude to restrain those inmates against their will if the inmates have violent or self-destructive tendencies. Which may mean restraints a lot more extreme than would be applied to a normal violent inmate, someone who won't be trying to slit their own wrists.

[eion]

Yes, and when it's applied the proper verdict is "not guilty by reason of insanity." People found not guilty by reason of insanity go to mental hospitals... which depends on enough hospitals existing to put them in.

Yes, and they go there to be cured (if possible) and released, not to be punished because legally they are not guilty of commiting a crime.

It all comes back to the desire to punish winning over the need to rehabilite. It feels good to punish, but it does more good to rehabiliate.

Granted. "Punish" was a stupid choice of words, I retract that.

But there remains a need to do something about crime and criminals- something that will prevent further crime. Rehabilitation is far and away the best choice, but the odds of a mentally ill person being rehabilitated in a jail, even a good one, are poor.

You've got to treat them somewhere. Where are the facilities where this is to be done? In the prisons (in which case you'll see people being strapped to tables in padded cells because otherwise they'll have an episode and kill themselves in the prisons)? Or in the mental hospitals? Do mental hospitals normally not need extreme physical restraint for even a small fraction of inmates?

I think the biggest difference between a prison and a mental hospital can be summed up in one word: drugs. The capacity to have a doctor 10 feet away who can shout, "Haldol, 5 milligrams!" and to have 4 burly orderlies grab the guy and get the shot in is a huge help. Chemical restraints have their own problems, but they are ideally (just like physical restraints) to be used only for acute issues. As far as I know, that kind of capability just doesn't (and probably shouldn't) exist in prisons. Beyond that, while prisons do allow people to take medications prescribed by a doctor, they have taken away those same medications as a punishment, which forces those prisoners’ original issue to reemerge, and cause more disruption.

I don't want prisons doing the job of hospitals, whether it's someone with severe DID who honestly isn't aware they just stole a car or a drug addict, they just aren't equipped to correct the underlying problem and reintegrate the person into society, and they've proven that. I'm sure we can agree we need MORE mental hospitals (despite Shep's belief, there are still many fine secure in-patient facilities around, though they have been mostly cleaned up or integrated into larger hospitals, though he is correct in that many of the state run ones have been shut down, which is a tragedy of shortsightedness and cruelty), and I for one think there need to be more mental health specialists in prisons, for if a 40 year old cubicle drone can benefit from weekly therapy there must be a few 40 year old bank robbers who can do the same. That along with vocational therapy and post-release programs can go a long way to reducing recidivism.

The job of a prison is to deprive someone of their liberty for the purpose of preventing further crimes during their incarceration and hopefully rehabilitating them to prevent further crimes upon their release. The job of a hospital is to cure disease and treat injury to allow people to return to a normal life. Both sometimes must use force to accomplish that goal, but there are far more differences than similarities. The crime is a choice (however forced a choice that might be), the disease is not.

As to punishment in prison, barring an immediate threat to the safety of staff, fellow prisoners, or themselves, force only exacerbates the level of violence in a facility. The deprivation of liberties should be an effective means to control miss-behavior.

We must prevent crime, and to do that we must often confine people against their will, but we need not be cruel.

[Kanastrous]

Locking someone up in a small room for an extended period of time is cruel, period. A certain degree of cruelty is inescapable once you start locking people up. Minimize it, sure. But it's unrealistic to expect a cruelty-free prison system - unless one doesn't find that confining people is cruel, to begin with.

[eion]

Locking someone up in a small room for an extended period of time is cruel, period. A certain degree of cruelty is inescapable once you start locking people up. Minimize it, sure. But it's unrealistic to expect a cruelty-free prison system - unless one doesn't find that confining people is cruel, to begin with.

If restricting liberties is cruel than every parent in the world is guilty of child abuse. When a child misbehaves, the parents ground them in their room. If a citizen misbehaves, the goverment grounds them in a prison.

[Kanastrous]

Wow. That's an impressive leap, from cruel to child abuse.

[tim31]

Yeah, because as discussed previously in this thread, jail cells come loaded with toys and other fun stuff.

There's a massive gulf between 'time out to think about why calling your sister a turd was wrong' and 'several years worth of repatriation for robbing a service station at gunpoint'.