I know Americans get a justice boner imagining bad criminals getting raped in prison, but is it beneficial for society to put people with a history of violence through living hell then leave them with no job prospects and basically no real opportunities once they are released? Does that set the general welfare of the country up for more prosperity, peace, improvement? Is it really all that surprising all the unique problems the United States has disproportionate to its wealth?
The prison system in the United States makes much more sense once you realize that its purpose is not to rehabilitate, or even to maintain public order, but to keep certain people (which means exactly what you imagine it means) locked up, cradle-to-grave. It's very good at that.
(Remember the classic mantra, "the purpose of a system is what it does.")
There is also a lot of dependence on prison labor, recidivism is good for business. Technically, convicted felons are fair game for slavery and indentured servitude - it says it right there in the 13th amendment.
I am always puzzled, there seems to be lots of people who seem to have decided that retribution is not the purpose of the justice system. It is the primary purpose of the justice system. Everything else (disuasion, redemption, reintegration, etc) comes as an secondary benefit/purpose.
Now we can debate whether locking someone in a tiny concrete cell for 60 years is an appropriate form of retribution, or even whether it is more humane than a quick death. And certainly any violence in jail is unacceptable. The US system seems a bit absurd to me. But the european systems of extreme laxism seem equally absurd and ineffective.
By that logic the chinese system is even less forgiving and the homicide rate is even lower there. The justice system isn't the only factor that influence crime rate.
Also if you never send your criminals to jail it's not surprising they don't show as recidivists. You end up in countries like France with criminals that have rap sheet of several pages and have never set foot in a jail. They operate in quasi impunity.
You're offended. Now, refute the characterization with cogent, rational arguments. Leaving off your own arguments and simply stating that you're affronted doesn't serve much of a point.
The point it serves is to communicate an opposing perspective, one that says there's something wrong with stereotyping a whole nation of people by basically saying they lack the ability to empathize and are sadistic and cruel.
> 91 Percent of Americans Support Criminal Justice Reform, ACLU Polling Finds
I think it's perfectly fair for an outside party to claim that the actions of a democratically-elected government represent the will of its citizens -- at least as an opening comment, surely.
Though, it's true that there are a lot of reasons why the US government fails to accurately represent a majority of its citizens on many (perhaps even most!) issues. I might even argue that our political party and electoral systems are currently structured such that our "representatives" largely don't even have to care about the will of the US citizenry.
But, I'd hardly expect everyone outside the US to understand that, particularly if they lived in one of the many first-world countries with better-functioning systems. Starting with that link as a rebuttal rather than a conversation-terminating "I am offended" response would have been more productive.
As an American, it sure seems like a fair characterization. Many politicians are in favor of harsh incarnation conditions, and a majority of Americans seem to support this position.
There is a different take on prisons in Europe. The take there is to prepare people for reintegration into society while the English take is to punish.
It's an interesting difference since prisons are actually there to punish but once the punishment has been served, the prisoner should have all equal chances to start again having learnt their lesson.
Preventing prison rape is 100% the responsibility of the guards, and absolutely, emphatically, 0% the responsibility of the inmates.
The very existence of this film implies that the inmates have a responsibility to protect themselves while literally being directly under government supervision, which is absurd, inhumane, and blame-shifting. “If you had protected yourself better in prison, despite us literally having armed guards around you, maybe it wouldn’t have happened. So it’s partially your fault, you know.”
It also makes the very name “Department of Corrections” a total farce. A purely punitive system with no corrective intent would probably be safer and more humane than this, when we stop pretending there is any rehabilitative value for being there.
I'd argue that if rape happens in prison, it is because the discipline is not enforced harshly enough. It blows my mind that certain prisons are effectively co-managed with gangs.
> In 2015, New York State prisons began showing state-made orientation videos [...] funded through a grant from the federal government under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)
I'm torn between "if the state officials need to make this video they've failed at something else" versus "well at least some of the officials think it's important enough for a video".
For anyone interested in hearing more inmate voices, Ear Hustle is a great podcast. I just discovered it this year and it has made me think about prison from many new perspectives.
There's no "vouch" button. I want to undo the "flag"
This is a very important issue. Most victims of rape in the USA are men, not women. And, sickeningly, many people are pro-rape when it comes to men in prison.
Female prisoners have been raped, sexually assaulted and even impregnated by these male prisoners who they're forced to cohabit with. There's no excuse whatsoever for prison authorities using women as human shields for male-on-male violence.
Women's prisons absolutely need to be female-only, for the safety and dignity of women. If male prisoners are in danger from other men, for whatever reason (ex-police, pedophile, trans-identifying, etc.), then that is solely an issue to be dealt with within the male prison estate. Not for vulnerable women to be punished with.
This is the problem with the so-called "trans rights" movement more broadly. Their activists will bend over backwards to cater to whatever demands these trans-identifying males have, while completely disregarding all the harmful negative impacts upon women. It's a deeply misogynistic type of activism that is centered almost entirely around male desires.
Honestly… you might be safer in solitary confinement, as absurd as that is. Get a good lawyer and make sure you get lots of books, papers, and writing tools.
