Missouri Prisons Pull Violent Video Games

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Missouri Prisons Pull Violent Video Games

Posted by Zonk on Thursday December 2, 2004 @08:29AM from the kill-a-man-and-get-no-mario dept.

blueZhift writes "Missouri's most violent criminals will no longer be permitted to play violent video games that simulate the kind of offenses that resulted in their incarceration in the first place. Prison officials pulled the games, which included such killfests as Hitman: Contracts, once they were informed of their violent content. Science fiction and sports games were not pulled as part of the sweep, so more nerdy prisoners will not be affected by the changes."

133 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Martha Stewart Omnimedia games titles too? by orthogonal · 2004-12-02 08:32 · Score: 4, Funny

"Missouri's most violent criminals will no longer be permitted to play violent video games that simulate the kind of offenses that resulted in their incarceration...."

OH NOES!1!!11!

No more playing "Martha Stewart: Living" or "Martha Stewart: Baking and Basting for Bubbette" in prison anymore? That is cruel and unusual punishment!

--
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
The real question: by Issue9mm · 2004-12-02 08:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think the real question is why they had them in the first place? Yes, I understand the argument that it's easier to keep them in line if they're docile, but c'mon... I can't tell you how many times I've wished for a place where the meals were prepared for me, could play video games, and not have any responsibilities to worry about (like work).

The more prisons offer to the inmates, the more inclined people are to WANT to go there. Even if they commit a lesser crime for the shorter sentence, it might end up being a choice vacation spot.

-9mm-
1. Re:The real question: by Pluvius · 2004-12-02 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Freedom is one of the most important things a person has. Most people wouldn't want to go to jail even if it was luxurious, and even if they were poor.
  
  That said, I agree that giving prisoners things like this doesn't exactly help to keep recidivism down.
  
  Rob
2. Re:The real question: by BTWR · 2004-12-02 08:39 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  it might end up being a choice vacation spot.
  Yeah - 3 square meals, no work, no rent, oh... and that pesky forced-anal-raping and beat-downs daily*. But hey - free cable and video games!
  *from my watchings of Oz - my skinny, white, jewish ass would last all of 45 seconds in a prison.
3. Re:The real question: by Saltine+Cracker · 2004-12-02 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  From what I picked up on the radio about this, basically the prisonners bought the games themselves and they were overlooked by an administrative clerk who overseas the prisonners' purchases.
  
  On a side note to this, basically the rule of thumb on purchasing games is not necessarily based on content, but more ESRB rating. So they're not going to all Mature ESRB games to be purchased.
  
  I guess that means no more Leisure Suit Larry: Larry Goes Meets Ben Dover in the Penn.
4. Re:The real question: by norkakn · 2004-12-02 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  we treat our prisoners poorly compared to the rest of the developed world for one. We treat our poor even worse, but they don't seem to be turning themselves in in record numbers.
5. Re:The real question: by kenp2002 · 2004-12-02 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  FYI: Prisoners still need to buy those items, the prison doesn't give them those items for free. They could also be gifts from relatives (yes criminals do have family and friends more often then not) not to mention that the majority of people in prison are in there for drug possession charges rather then act such as homicide, buglury, rape, or assaults (hell in short, violent crimes.)
  
  --
  -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
6. Re:The real question: by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  [i]3 square meals[/i]
  
  Whew... Final Fantasy games are okay, then.
7. Re:The real question: by PoopJuggler · 2004-12-02 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  That must be why there are so few people in prison.
8. Re:The real question: by Pluvius · 2004-12-02 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  There would be few people in prison if we only detained people who wanted to be there.
  
  Rob
9. Re:The real question: by *weasel · 2004-12-02 09:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  In NY state the split is actually 38% of felons are in jail on drug charges, and almost 30% of those have also been convicted of a violent crime. So you've got about ~25% of felons in there because of mandatory minimums.
  
  http://www.drugpolicy.org/statebystate/newyork/r oc kefellerd/index.cfm
  
  Nationally the average is closer to 21%
  http://www.enotes.com/americas-prisons/
  
  Granted, these are certainly dramatically increased over the last 20 years -- but they're not nearly the 'majority' you're tossing around.
  
  --
  // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
10. Re:The real question: by FooAtWFU · 2004-12-02 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  It's different if you're one of the guys big enough to be doing the forcing and the beating down, I'd imagine.
  
  --
  The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
11. Re:The real question: by wayne606 · 2004-12-02 09:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "I have the leisure to study without the distractions of having to support myself. I view prison as a sort of utopia with constraints." - Theodore Streleski
  
  Streleski was a math student convicted in the early 80's of killing his PhD advisor with an axe, after spending some unreasonable number of years as a grad student.
  
  I guess no more playing "Riemann Space 2001 : Invasion of the Monoids" for him.
12. Re:The real question: by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  Not to mention that prisons are amazingly effective breeding grounds for some awful diseases--Hepatitis, Tuberculosis, you name it. Not a good thing.
13. Re:The real question: by Frizzle+Fry · 2004-12-02 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  FYI: Prisoners still need to buy those items, the prison doesn't give them those items for free. They could also be gifts from relatives
  
  The article really isn't that long; would it have killed you to at least glance at it before posting?
  
  --
  I'd rather be lucky than good.
14. Re:The real question: by Pxtl · 2004-12-02 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Which ties into the fundamental problem with violent prisons: the kind of monsters who'd beat a man down and rape him are the ones who should be punished harder, and yet they live like kings in a lax prison system.
15. Re:The real question: by NanoGator · 2004-12-02 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  "The more prisons offer to the inmates, the more inclined people are to WANT to go there. "
  
  Have you ever been grounded before?
  
  --
  "Derp de derp."
16. Re:The real question: by Issue9mm · 2004-12-02 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and as the adage goes, groundings became a lot less of a punishment after I had a phone, TV, PC and gaming system in my room. Who cared that I couldn't go out and do stuff? I had Quake to keep me company.
  
  You know what punishments WORKED tho? The ones in which those amenities were taken away.
  
  -9mm-
17. Re:The real question: by kenp2002 · 2004-12-02 09:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  ...Marc Mauer, assistant director of the Sentencing Project, maintains that "in 1980, 6 percent of inmates were in for drug offenses. That's up to 21 percent in 2000."...
  
  Allow me to revise for clarity
  ...More than a quarter of the state and federal inmates were in prison
  for drug offenses (234,600 prisoners) in 1993. Prisoners serving a
  drug sentence increased from 8 percent of the state and federal prison
  population in 1980 to 26 percent in 1993. In federal prisons, inmates
  sentenced for drug law violations were the single largest group--60
  percent in 1993, up from 25 percent in 1980. ...
  ( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/pi94.pr )
  
  This doesn't even take the recent surge after 1993 with Crystal Meth hitting the mainstream drug users in the late 90s.
  
  --
  -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
18. Re:The real question: by kenp2002 · 2004-12-02 10:01 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I did ... The games were paid for from inmates' purchases ...
  
  I was referring in general how prison items are purchased. The state doesn't buy those items. The inmates do by generating their own revenue. TVs in cells are pruchased individually by inmates who earn money doing work. Other, larger group items, such as excercise equipment are purchased by committiee in many cases(Varies from state to state of course) In many states even the books in the library are in-mate funded.
  
  --
  -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
19. Re:The real question: by NanoGator · 2004-12-02 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  "Yeah, and as the adage goes, groundings became a lot less of a punishment after I had a phone, TV, PC and gaming system in my room. Who cared that I couldn't go out and do stuff?"
  
  I had all that crap and I still hated being grounded. You know the adage "The grass is always greener?" Just knowing you can't go out and do something...
  
  Hehe kinda funny in a way, I'm dealing with a variant of this feeling right now. I'm working on some 3D shots for a friend. I love doing 3D shots. If I were doing this on my own, I'd enjoy every minute of it and not want to do anything else. But, I have a deadline. And now, all I can see is the deadline on the distant horizon with the hope that I'll be able to do things like watch TV! Get what I'm saying? It really weighs heavily on somebody when they know they can't do something. I think it was Dogbert who observed that people overvalue loss over gain.
  
  --
  "Derp de derp."
20. Re:The real question: by bigman2003 · 2004-12-02 11:33 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  See- that's the problem with this whole outsourcing thing.
  
  Some prison official got the idea to outsource, (or send 'overseas') the task of determining if the prisoners purchases were appropriate or not.
  
  I can't expect someone in India, making only a few Rupees a day, to understand, or care, what prisoners in the US should be doing with their free time.
  
  Once again- outsourcing is the cause of our troubles.
  
  --
  No reason to lie.
21. Re:The real question: by anotherone · 2004-12-02 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  I can't tell you how many times I've wished for a place where the meals were prepared for me, could play video games, and not have any responsibilities to worry about (like work).
  
  You're thinking of College.
  
  --
  Username taken, please choose another one.
22. Re:The real question: by pipingguy · 2004-12-02 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  The more prisons offer to the inmates, the more inclined people are to WANT to go there
  
  Just look at Australia for example.
  
  Sorry.
23. Re:The real question: by drinkypoo · 2004-12-02 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  While you may have a point (although a sibling to this comment strongly disagrees) something that both you and the parent poster don't pay attention to is all the crimes that are drug-motivated. People committing crimes to get drugs or money for drugs is a real issue.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
24. Re:The real question: by Tanktalus · 2004-12-02 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  NanoGator, Issue9mm ... you're both right. You both value different things. To 9mm, you didn't value your freedom as much, so taking away your freedom without taking away things to do that you enjoyed wasn't effective. NG, you value your freedom more, so even being able to play Doom in your room was no compensation for missing out on what your friends were doing.
  
  The ideal justice system would react similarly: it would merely take away specific things that each offender values as punishment. To those who value freedom, lock-up. To those who value computers/consoles, a ban from being anywhere near one (and some way to enforce that).
  
  Back to the real world, though. Since just figuring out what each offender values would be a vast use of resource, and enforcing anything other than lock-up and cash fines would be nearly impossible (how many restraining orders actually work? Imagine being ordered not to go near drugs for a drug addict!), I realise that I'm dreaming. Lockup and fines are about all we have left. We're not rehabilitating. We're punishing, and not always all that effectively, either.
25. Re:The real question: by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 15:12 · Score: 0
  
  A problem you wouldn't see so much of if the drugs were legal in the first place. It's hard to get killed over buying/selling crack when it's available on the store shelves. That would be like getting killed over a box of cookies.
  
  It happens.
  
  Just not very often.
26. Re:The real question: by Lord+Kano · 2004-12-02 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  I can't tell you how many times I've wished for a place where the meals were prepared for me, could play video games, and not have any responsibilities to worry about (like work).
  
  In prison, you have to constantly be concerned with the security and sanctity of your anus.
  
  Prison may not be the homosexual rape fest that some people make it out to be, but even 1 rape per 10000 inmates is higher odds that I'm comfortable with.
  
  The more prisons offer to the inmates, the more inclined people are to WANT to go there. Even if they commit a lesser crime for the shorter sentence, it might end up being a choice vacation spot.
  
  I guess your crack dealer must be on the outside.
  
  LK
  
  --
  "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
27. Re:The real question: by kubrick · 2004-12-02 15:50 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Streleski was a math student convicted in the early 80's of killing his PhD advisor with an axe, after spending some unreasonable number of years as a grad student.
  
  Sounds like a clear case of justifiable homicide to me.
  
  --
  deus does not exist but if he does
28. Re:The real question: by wayne606 · 2004-12-02 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  That's the defense he gave ... We used to joke about the Theodore Streleski Foundation for the Humane Treatment of Grad Students ...
29. Re:The real question: by Eil · 2004-12-02 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  In Pennsylvania, they actually PAY you to go to prison. That's right, do hard time and make hard cash at the same time. It's only something like 7 cents an hour, but that can still add up after a couple years, especially when you don't have anything to spend it on.
30. Re:The real question: by leland242 · 2004-12-03 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Jackass, there are so many people in jail because of this country's pointless war on mariju...er, drugs.
31. Re:The real question: by Aliencow · 2004-12-03 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, a whooping 600$ a year or something!
32. Re:The real question: by Eil · 2004-12-03 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I said that it was a small amount. But many in prison have relatively long sentences. A person getting 7 cents an hour for 30 years comes out with nearly $18,000. That's nothing to sneeze at.
  
  Even though a short sentence won't get you much, it's absurd that prisoners get paid at all.
33. Re:The real question: by gcaseye6677 · 2004-12-03 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  I believe this payment is for doing work in the prison industry system, not just for sitting around watching TV.
34. Re:The real question: by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-04 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  Pay for labour is necessary; have the capitalists decided to eliminate that pesky prohibition on slavery where you are and gain the full profit from prisoners' labour?
35. Re:The real question: by emkman · 2004-12-05 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  umm the largest population of prison inmates is non-violent drug offenders.
  
  The U.S. nonviolent prisoner population is larger than the combined populations of Wyoming and Alaska.
  
  Source: John Irwin, Ph. D., Vincent Schiraldi, and Jason Ziedenberg, America's One Million Nonviolent Prisoners (Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 1999), pg. 4.
  
  http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm
  
  --
  Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
36. Re:The real question: by Eil · 2004-12-06 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  My information (sans the actual rate, which I don't recall) came from a security officer that works in the prison. His exact words were, "You get 3 hots, a cot, and x cents an hour for your patronage."
37. Re:The real question: by Eil · 2004-12-06 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Bleh, in too much of a hurry. Append to the officer's quote: "...without having to lift a finger."
Nerdy? by Pluvius · 2004-12-02 08:32 · Score: 2, Informative

Since sports games are by far the most popular genre of video games for the casual player, it'd be more accurate to say "normal prisoners will not be affected."

Rob
As much as I dislike this by UltimaL337Star · 2004-12-02 08:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

I could understand prison guards feeling uncomfortable watching inmates trying to kill the cops in video games all day.
1. Re:As much as I dislike this by bigman2003 · 2004-12-02 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if they get to play Riddick - Escape from Butcher Bay.
  
  That would make me nervous as a guard...
  
  --
  No reason to lie.
In other news... by daeley · 2004-12-02 08:36 · Score: 3, Funny

In other news, 387 prisoners in Missouri were shivved in separate incidents yesterday. Reports are conflicting at the moment, but assailants were overheard screaming things like "M*therf*cking Zergling Rushing F*ck!!!" and "I'll show you a m*therf*cking hat trick, b*tch!"

--
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
1. Re:In other news... by norkakn · 2004-12-02 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  prisons suck. US prisons are the worst in the "civilised" world. Seems to help our crime a lot, eh? Maybe rehabilitation would be better?
2. Re:In other news... by Pluvius · 2004-12-02 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Most crime in the US is actually a direct result of the War on Drugs. End that and legalize or decriminalize at least some more drugs and you'll see crime rates drop considerably. Oh, and divert some of the massive amounts of funds we're wasting on that "war" to education and welfare for further decreases. That, of course, would have a positive effect on our prison system.
  
  Rob
3. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  "legalize or decriminalize at least some more drugs and you'll see crime rates drop considerably"
  
  And in other news, legalizing murder, robbery, and rape would result in lower crime rates as well.
4. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  How do you pronounce "m*therf*cking"? Are those stars like the funky clicks they make in African languages? Or are you suggesting that felons are apt to censor themselves? Maybe you though that I would have no clue what word that's supposed to be, and therefore not be offended?
5. Re:In other news... by Pluvius · 2004-12-02 08:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If murder, robbery, and rape don't harm other people, then they should be legalized.
  
  Rob
6. Re:In other news... by saintp · 2004-12-02 08:59 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  But then how would we oppress Black people!?!?!?
  
  --
  Another one bites the dust
7. Re:In other news... by maxume · 2004-12-02 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Sure decriminalization would lead to a drop in crime rates. But let's be honest when we are talking about it.
  
  Incarceration would likely drop(who knows, maybe drug use leads to violent crime irrespective of current laws...) but the activities that are currently considered crimes would likely increase. The most dramitic increase would probably be in possession. I am still for at least trying moderate decriminalization, just not for the feel good viewpoint that 'crime rates' would drop.
  
  To be clear, of course they will drop. That is what happens when you massively change the definition of what acts are actually crimes. It is less clear how decriminalization will effect the rates of crimes related to laws that are not changed.
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
8. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 09:12 · Score: 0
  
  Throw 'em into Bantustans...
9. Re:In other news... by hal2814 · 2004-12-02 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  We still have the welfare system.
10. Re:In other news... by Pxtl · 2004-12-02 09:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  US prisons suck not because of the perks and bennys like games and TV that the prisoners receive, its the laissez-faire attitude to rape and violence in the prison.
  
  IMHO, if prisoners were treated like teenagers at a tough-love boot-camp (no recreation, no life, no privacy), but never assraped or shivved or anything, then prisons would be more oppressive but simultaneously less cruel.
  
  The games are orthogonal to the problem. I think we'd all rather be in a Canadian prison without an XBox than a US prison with one.
11. Re:In other news... by j-turkey · 2004-12-02 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Incarceration would likely drop(who knows, maybe drug use leads to violent crime irrespective of current laws...) but the activities that are currently considered crimes would likely increase...It is less clear how decriminalization will effect the rates of crimes related to laws that are not changed.
  
  I can't tell whether your post is pragmatic, or succumbing to FUD. Our current prohibition laws are totally unscientific as it stands (and they were in the '30s when it all began). Our justification for them are either based on falsehoods, or based purely moral principles without any scientific basis (leading back to the false justifications). Furthermore, current data suggests that legalization and/or decriminalization would show a decrease in said drug use.
  
  I am not, however recommending that we replace a senseless policy with another senseless policy. Of course study is warranted...but the opponents of changing our policy repeatedly refuse to accept any pragmatic data. In fact, they fabricate their own "facts" in order to contradict to this data (no idea what that site's all about...just the first link from a Google search).
  
  Part of the problem is that the people in the US government (ONDCP, DEA, and those under the curtain of DH&HS) will do anything to keep their budgets and jobs. This includes fabricating data which the Congress relies on and results in poor lawmaking. Ultimately, this needlessly puts otherwise productive members of society in jail. I'd like to target both the hypocrisy and the jerks who purvey it in our reform of drug law.
  
  --
  
  -Turkey
12. Re:In other news... by maxume · 2004-12-02 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Hopefully pragmatic. I lean towards thinking that use of stuff like Heroin and Cocaine would probably decrease if policy was shifted from incarceration to treatment. That said, I have trouble believing that use of marijuana would decrease. There are just too many people who are casual users now.
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
13. Re:In other news... by eviltypeguy · 2004-12-02 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  In other news, geeks who installed folding at home on school computers without authorisation also get sent to prison...
  
  Seriously, not everyone in prison necessarily should be there.
  
  And additionally, some people have committed crimes that I hardly consider worth incarceration.
  
  My biggest problems with prison is that it's supposed to be a place where people are rehabilitated and prepared to rejoin society. But, anymore it's treated as a place to isolate and lockaway people, which only increases the chances of them never being able to return to be successful members of society.
  
  Now before you go flaming me saying there's a lot of nasty people out there...
  
  Yes, more than likely most of that people in prison are ones that should be.
  
  But, I think making anything that's supposed to be a rehabilitation center into a living hell would only make people worse when they leave.
  
  Balance is the key, what that balance is the people need to decide...
14. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 11:11 · Score: 0
  
  Oh yes, because your foundless statement have so much ever logic to back them up.
  
  No one can prove that legalising drugs would drop crime rates in the US because the US hasn't tried it.
  
  Things could get much worse, barely change, or be much better.
  
  Unless you're omniscient it would be wise to not make such bold claims.
15. Re:In other news... by vespazzari · 2004-12-02 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  so the use of marijuana would increase.... so? Do you think it would be any more of a problem than alcohol?
  
  --
  "Alcohol, cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" -Homer Simpson
16. Re:In other news... by bigman2003 · 2004-12-02 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah...what's the worst thing that can happen to you in a Canadian prison...getting picked last for softball?
  
  --
  No reason to lie.
17. Re:In other news... by maxume · 2004-12-02 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  If you check the current data suggests link, you will find that it suggests that decriminalization/legalization will lead to a decrease in marijuana use. This is what I was speaking to. I don't think I really injected much of a judgement about the problems it would or wouldn't cause into what I said.
  
  As for what I think, marijuana is likely to always be less of a problem than alcohol. It's use is certainly less prevalent, and the line between use and abuse isn't quite so dangerous(to other people). To me, responsible use of alcohol doesn't include driving. I'm not sure what I think about driving while toking.
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
18. Re:In other news... by drinkypoo · 2004-12-02 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  You can't spend that money on education without more teachers. The lack of instructors is one of the biggest problems facing education today. The other one is lack of places to put them, which is a result of the apparent lack of money. Here in California they have alloted money for remodeling but none for new construction, which is ass backwards. They should be alloting money for repairs and for new schools and nothing for prettying up the cafeteria.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
19. Re:In other news... by Pluvius · 2004-12-02 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it's self-evident that legalizing drugs would lead to a lower crime rate, as possessing, distributing, and using those drugs are currently crimes. As for lowering the rate of other crimes, the fact that many crimes are committed due to addicts' need for drug money should make the effect of the massive drop in price after legalization rather obvious.
  
  Rob
20. Re:In other news... by Pluvius · 2004-12-02 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  The reason why there are no teachers is that teachers below the collegiate level don't get paid worth a damn, even taking the four months of holidays into account. It's the old chicken/egg syndrome.
  
  Really, though, we don't need to put more funding into education as much as we need to stop giving all of the money that's there to pencil-pushers.
  
  Rob
21. Re:In other news... by drinkypoo · 2004-12-02 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  I strongly agree. If we expect teachers to work for peanuts, why not the administrators? From what I understand the president of the community college which I attend and at which I work as an intern (don't ask... but I will tell you that my job does not require kneepads) makes as much as any other four people employed by the college. That doesn't make any sense to me, because the school is mostly engaged in self-destruction. Maybe if you actually got something for all that money.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
22. Re:In other news... by DAldredge · 2004-12-02 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  And what is wrong and/or oppresive about the welfare system?
23. Re:In other news... by TheLink · 2004-12-02 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  4x more? What's wrong with that?
  
  If the job has far more than 4x the responsibility (if you screw up the consequences are more than 4x worse compared to a 1x job) then being paid 4x isn't such a bad thing. Of course there shouldn't be a linear correlation, but there should be a correlation.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
24. Re:In other news... by The-Bus · 2004-12-03 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. That's why the only games they can play are Daikatana, Extreme Paintbrawl, and Jaws for the NES.
  
  --
  Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
25. Re:In other news... by drinkypoo · 2004-12-03 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Except that the school is rapidly circling the toilet bowl with the majority of its problems only increasing. The penalty is being allowed to retire from the position quietly and gracefully so you can go on to fuck up another school, or some company somewhere. The consequences for the employee are the same either way - you quit. Because it's a school it's nigh-impossible to fire anyone.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
26. Re:In other news... by norkakn · 2004-12-03 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  I think a great idea to reduce crime would be a manual labour pool. The idea would be that there would be a gov run non profit type work arrangement where you could show up for a day and do unskilled manual labour at 6/hr. If you suck or don't work, you get kicked out, if it happens a lot you get blacklisted, but generally, you show up, you work, they hand you cash. I know lots of people who either have small (well, compared to say crack) drug problems or are just fucking poor who would love this. It wouldn't matter that they had tattoos or piercings or dropped out of HS, they could go, work their arse off and then buy some drugs and food and kick back in the evening. Even if the work weren't completely useful (as in worth less than 6/hr), or something that needn't be done right then (hauling away refuse from abandoned building in detroit), there is useful work that could be done and the societal impact would be rather good. Imagine if detroit could put all of it's crackheads to work? (oh, a side hint, if you ever want your lawn __really__ clean, offer to pay a crack head $20 if they get it perfect and they will hunt around for _everything_)
27. Re:In other news... by gcaseye6677 · 2004-12-03 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that rehabilitation is certainly worth a try, but the way to rehabilitate people is not to go soft on them and give them a comfortable prison with video games. Rehabilitation must be a hard kick in the ass, which requires a lot of hard work and commitment from the inmate, with the understanding that if they screw up they have years of hard time ahead of them instead of an early release. That is the only way any kind of rehabilitation will be possible. Going easy on prisoners only guarantees more problems from them later on.
28. Re:In other news... by norkakn · 2004-12-03 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  you make it sound as though crime is a mere preference. Perhaps if we taught people while in jail so that they could make more than 6$/hr when they got out it would be less appealing to hold up a liquor store. Most of the people in jail aren't bad people. Most of the people in jail don't particularly want to be criminals, it's just that that is what they know how to do and they think that it's the best they have.
  
  a "hard kick in the ass" won't get you jack shit, and please cite some thing for "only guarantees more problems later on" If you want a counter, check out the this american life (www.thislife.org) show on special treatment.
29. Re:In other news... by gcaseye6677 · 2004-12-03 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, it's society's fault. Same bullshit, different day. That line of thinking, of trying to understand the criminal, caused society to go to hell in the 60s and 70s. In parts of New York you could hardly walk down the street without getting mugged. Now that we've seen through that stupidity and started locking criminals up where they belong, regardless of how they "needed" to rob that liquor store in order to have enough cash to buy that 8 ball. If you want to find out more about problems people get into after being released from prison, just look at any state's recidivism statistics. They are well over 50%. And that's after "rehabilitation".
30. Re:In other news... by norkakn · 2004-12-03 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  rehabilitation doesn't exist in US prisons and I never said it was society's fault, jsut that society can do something to help wtih the problem. There are many things that it really doesn't matter who's fault it is, just who can help.
  
  And you don't think that a hugely unpopular war, social upheavel, coplete loss of faith in te government, racial tension and rioting and the like _maybe_ had something to do with it? We have a very dangerous country without many good stats attatched to it, so i'm not sure where you get the "working" part. and if he needs the cash to buy and 8ball, perhaps if we fixed our drug policy it might not be as much of a problem. maybe if we try to pick means that might actually work, we might reduce crime instead of just praying the smack stays in style. (drug use is largely responsible for the current lull in violent crime. heroin addicts cause much less crime than crack/ cocaine addicts)
  
  I don't look at it is the criminal being sick or wrong, i look at it as a paraparticipative system. different bullshit, different day
31. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-04 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  typical response...........the TEACHERS do all the work and the pencil pushing MORONS get all the money........it is because of people like you that our (US) school system is failing.......
32. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-04 16:25 · Score: 0
  
  QUOTE FROM ARTICLE::
  "It has a good effect on helping us run the prison and make sure they're busy and not trying to work on ways to escape or harm others," Dormire said. "That's kind of our bottom line -- public safety." --
  
  what a crock.......like prison RAPE does not harm anyone........
Yes by CptChipJew · 2004-12-02 08:36 · Score: 1, Redundant

Cuz nerds love nothing more than a good round of Madden 2005 :D

--
Vonal Declosion
You'd have thought they'd realize this... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 08:36 · Score: 3, Funny

...when the prison administrator was asked to pick up a game called Grand Theft Auto.
In other news... by GeekWithGuns · 2004-12-02 08:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Missouri's prisoners are allowed to play video games!?!

Isn't is supposed to be a punishment to be in prison? Part of that is not being allowed to have stuff like this to enjoy. Prison is supposed to suck!

--
[End of diatribe. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...] - Larry Wall in Configure from the perl
Hmm by say__10 · 2004-12-02 08:38 · Score: 1

As a Missourian (unfortunatly) I say good deal on pulling the games, but as a nerd I am angry at this comment: "They're not afraid to engage in violence, unlike the nerd sitting in front of his computer." Painting everyone that sits in front of their computer as a nerd, and in a derrogatory manner. For shame, we can be just as violent! And we know how to camp and bunnyhop too!

--
Home of the midwest loser - www.say-10.net
1. Re:Hmm by say__10 · 2004-12-02 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  and i forgot my paragraph breaks, sue me.
  
  --
  Home of the midwest loser - www.say-10.net
2. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-03 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  Jarrod you f*ckin hoebag biznitch.
Good call by meanfriend · 2004-12-02 08:39 · Score: 1

Criminals should not be allowed to hone their talents while doing time.

The penal system should try and make sure their "bad guy" skill-sets are at least a *little* rusty when they inenvitably get out.
1. Re:Good call by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 15:19 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, I'm totally prepared to pull off a successful bank robbery after I practiced while playing Vice City. I agree with them removing the games but your comment is dumb and pointless.
2. Re:Good call by maxchaote · 2004-12-06 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Criminals should not be allowed to hone their talents while doing time.
  
  The penal system should try and make sure their "bad guy" skill-sets are at least a *little* rusty when they inenvitably get out.
  
  Hmmm... let me get this straight: you take all of a particular area's criminals, and then to keep them from committing more crimes, you put them together where they can communicate, as well as exchanging ideas, experiences, and notes, and then expect them to come out rusty?? That's just brilliant.
huh?? by kenp2002 · 2004-12-02 08:39 · Score: 0, Troll

WTF?!?!?! WHY ARE PRISONERS PLAYING VIDEO GAMES IN THE FIRST F%$^#! PLACE!!!???? It's god damn prison. No TV, no playstation, nothing. They're criminal for crying out lound. What the fuck happened to "PUNISHMENT?" That's what prisons if for!!!!

THEY SHOULD GET WATER, PLAIN WHOLE WHEAT BREAD AND A CAN OF UNSALTED PEANUTS AND WITH GOOD BEHAVIOR, MAYBE, A MULTIVITAMIN!!!

Good to see we treat our criminals better then we treat our poor!

--
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
1. Re:huh?? by MindStalker · 2004-12-02 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  I think its a ploy to make jurors and Judges give longer sentences. When prisons used to be dark holes, murderers would get a lot of time, while smaller crimes would only get a few months. Cause a few months in hell is a long time. While modern prisoner will get much longer sentences for such minor crimes.
2. Re:huh?? by kenp2002 · 2004-12-02 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  So you think they are playing with the media to influence future potential jurors?
  
  --
  -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
3. Re:huh?? by evilmousse · 2004-12-02 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  no, he made more of a slippery-slope argument: that wishy-washy prison policy influences sentencing for the harsher, and harsh sentencing induces wishy-washiness in prison policy.
  
  it sounds feasable, but i'm not sure..
4. Re:huh?? by saintp · 2004-12-02 09:03 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually, the concept of prison as punishment is relatively recent. They used to be places of rehabilitation, and before that testaments to the power of the sovereign. That they are used by the people to punish other people is an innovation from past few hundred years. The modern prison is not designed to rehabilitate, or to deter. It, like the modern judicial system, is designed to ensure that the same minorities who currently populate it will continue to populate it for years to come.
  I highly recommend reading Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish if you're interested in an illuminating discussion of the history of the prison system and a detailed account of how we arrived at a society of surveillance. Given all the tinfoil-hattery on /., it should be required reading.
  
  --
  Another one bites the dust
5. Re:huh?? by Severious · 2004-12-02 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  I think this just goes to show what has happening to our prison system. There is all sorts of talk about reforming the criminal or deterring them from crime with harsher punishments but the reality is that neither of these is the truth.
  
  Reform is expensive and in some cases unfair. Should a prisoner be given a chance to get a college education and thus chance at a life free of crime? If so is that fair to a person who has done nothing wrong and yet can not afford a college degree? Many prisons are for profit institutions they are not interested in reform, nor are they interested in deterring crime, both are bad for business.
  
  Crime prevention though deterrents such ah harsh punishments does not work either. People don't do these things expecting to be caught. They don't sit there and do a cost benefit analysis of the rewards vs jail time.
  
  The truth is that our prison system is designed to lock away the undesirables, to remove them from society. Reform is just political speak to make us all warm and fuzzy about locking up so many people.
  
  --
  Tinfoil hat? Naa, I long since replaced it with a reinforced titanium alloy.
6. Re:huh?? by 10101001+10101001 · 2004-12-02 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Used to be places of rehabilitation? At least in the US, prisons have never been explicitly designed as places of rehabilitation. It's only since the beginning of the drug war has there been any reason talk of rehabilitation. Why? Because short of brain washing it's nearly impossible to force someone to give up their deviant behavior (ever watch Clockwork Orange?). The same is true with drugs, but many people are convinced that drugs "ensnare" people. In fact, it's the opposite. People ensnare themselves with drugs, trying to escape responsibility/life.
  
  If they want to do that, fine. Instead of putting such people in jail, their families should take care of them. Of course, their families are probably the chief reason they're doing drugs to such a visible extent. But are prisons as a rehabilitation clinic that never works the real solution? Or will stopping the drug flow into the US simply divert their behavior to another self-destructive activity? Drugs are the symptom. If our country is unwilling to work to fix the cause, then killing the symptom will just change the symptom. More alchies, anyone? Btw, the politicians are primarily doing this because parents and the like are unwilling to admit that they're the source of the drug problem, so they'd rather vote in a politician who espouses that drugs are the problem.
  
  --
  Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
7. Re:huh?? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  They used to be places of rehabilitation...
  
  Perhaps, but let's be honest: they were for the 'rehabilitation" of a privliged few. For the most part:
  
  Other medieval and old regime executions were rarely as prolonged or as cruel. But there was no notion of reforming the serious offender, and consequently violent punishments that expiated the crime, supposedly deterred potential offenders, and, at times, symbolized the deed, were developed. In some territories a woman found guilty of infanticide was drowned in a sack; a parricide (killer of a near relative) had his, or her, hand lopped off before execution. Heretics might be burned at the stake; arsonists and women who had killed their husbands might suffer similarly. On continental Europe those found guilty of particularly serious crimes such as banditry or murder could have their limbs smashed by the executioner with a large wheel; the broken body was then displayed on the wheel. But most offenders who were executed were either hanged or beheaded. In some countries the execution followed an elaborate ceremony in which the offender, dressed in a symbolic shift (a loose gown), sought penitence in church, and made public atonement before the crowd.
  Encarta
8. Re:huh?? by saintp · 2004-12-02 09:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The period during which prisons were places of rehabilitation was very short. It basically took place in the brief period between monarchy and the religious takeover of democracy.
  Other than that, I agree with you mostly. What you describe in the end is generally characteristic of the entire American political system right now, not just vis-a-vis drug policy. Parents aren't diligent enough to refuse to buy Codeine-coated Landmine Pops for their kids? Outlaw 'em! Consumers aren't conscientious enough to patronize only smoke-free bars? Ban smoking there!
  I'd actually one-up you: Drugs are only one (relatively minor) symptom; prisons are the symptom. The degree to which a society needs a police force and a prison system correlates directly to the degree to which a society is dysfunctional.
  
  --
  Another one bites the dust
9. Re:huh?? by drinkypoo · 2004-12-02 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  The proliferation of prisons is a symptom of two primary things: The war on drugs, and the way all of our "systems" - the welfare system, the legal system, et cetera - are designed to maintain and increase the stratification of society. We reward people for committing white collar crimes intelligently by allowing them to eventually go free and spend the money they squirreled away in foreign bank accounts, and we punish people on welfare for trying to better themselves by cutting off their assistance when they start making even less money than we're giving them for free. Our entire society is basically designed to build and fill prisons.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Time to go kill some people. by Xaviar21 · 2004-12-02 08:39 · Score: 3, Funny

Oh man.. You get video games in prison?
Free food, a free bed, and free video games.
Why haven't I killed someone, yet?
1. Re:Time to go kill some people. by NarrMaster · 2004-12-02 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  Probably because of the daily anal rapings.
  
  --
  That's right. All your base.
2. Re:Time to go kill some people. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 17:05 · Score: 0
  
  Hell yeah, you're even guaranteed to find yourself a boyfriend once you get in there.
3. Re:Time to go kill some people. by MonkeyCookie · 2004-12-03 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  My girlfriend works in a California prison, and although they get coddled a lot, it's still not a place you would want to be in.
  
  Indeed, there are a lot of nice things like TV in their cells (which the prisoners have to purchase with their own money, not the state's), free medical care (there are lots of lawsuits when medical care is lacking), and free education.
  
  There are, however, lots of disadvantages:
  You of course can't go anywhere, the food is pretty crappy, there isn't much of it: just enough to keep them nourished. Ramen is so valued that it is like a currency (they trade in "soups"), and inmates will buy drugs (when they get smuggled into the prison) with ramen.
  
  So in addition to being hungry a lot, the inmates are overcrowded, live in buildings that are usually too hot, and since there are so few showers, only get to shower once a week. Apparently they smell like sewers, sweating constantly in the hot buildings.
  
  The worst part of prison life is that since they don't have a lot do, they are constantly trying to think of ways to kill each other. A lot of them have some insane drive to kill each other, and they'll make weapons out of virtually anything. In a recent stabbing, the weapon was a sharpened light switch cover plate that was covertly removed from a wall. No matter how hard they try to deprive the inmates of weapon material, they always manage to get their hands on something.
  
  Their intense desire to kill each other is absolutely bizarre to me. Absolutely nothing (not even the death penalty) will deter some of them from trying to kill their fellow inmates. They form gangs that fight against each other, and any inmates refusing to join gangs will be killed by anyone in a gang.
  
  Indeed the prison system does everything they can to prevent it, but unless they lock them all in solitary confinement, it still manages to happen.
  
  So in addition to living conditions that aren't fun, one constantly has to watch out for murderous fellow inmates with a desire to kill.
  
  They may get coddled in some respects, but it's still a very unpleasant place to live.
4. Re:Time to go kill some people. by MonkeyCookie · 2004-12-03 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  I forgot to mention that anal rapings don't actually occur regularly there, as guards will usually hear and stop it if the prisoner yells for help. It still does happen on occasion, and so do the inevitable lawsuits.
  
  There is, however, plenty of voluntary homosexual activity there, especially between cellmates.
5. Re:Time to go kill some people. by JuggleGeek · 2004-12-04 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely nothing (not even the death penalty) will deter some of them from trying to kill their fellow inmates.
  Bullshit. Properly applied, the death penalty has a 100% success rate.
Priveleges in Prison by spencerogden · 2004-12-02 08:41 · Score: 1

I think prisoners are entitled to all career advancement options availible. FPS to improve aim, gyms to strengthen the body, and cable TV to find new things to get pissed about.

Its understandable that we have to clothe, feed and give medical care to inmates, but I fail to see where entertainment comes in. I mean when you were a kid and screwed up the first thing your parents did was ban TV, videogames, etc. Can grown up criminals not handle this level of deprivation?

--
Spencer Ogden
1. Re:Priveleges in Prison by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  but I fail to see where entertainment comes in. I mean when you were a kid and screwed up the first thing your parents did was ban TV, videogames, etc. Can grown up criminals not handle this level of deprivation?
  Except as a kid your parents didn't lock you in a room, with a bed, toilet, a few books, no windows and a single lightbulb hanging from the ceiling. Try sitting in an empty room for 24 hours. No TV. No books. No windows. No other humans to speak to. No video games. No computers. NOTHING. Chances are you'll lose your mind from either : A) boredom, B) frustration of nothing to do with lots of time, C) from talking to yourself.
2. Re:Priveleges in Prison by spencerogden · 2004-12-02 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, that sounds pretty bad, rimind me not to go out and kill anyone.
  
  --
  Spencer Ogden
You mean these games are violent? by MobyDisk · 2004-12-02 08:41 · Score: 4, Funny

"We didn't closely review these," Dave Dormire, superintendent of the Jefferson City Correctional Center, told The Kansas City Star. "We were told these games had more like cartoon violence."
How close do you need to look?
Game Name: "Hitman: Contracts"
ESRB Rating: Mature (17+) for Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs
Sounds coming from prison: "That !@#* warden Dormire is gonna get !$*#$!"

Also note that the ESRB does explicitly label Cartoon Violence as opposed to Violence.
I am amazed at how warning labels are ignored, even when they are simple and relevant! I bet I could put a label on something that says using it will kill you, and people would still buy it... Oh wait, they call that Tobacco!
wow, much better than work by krudler · 2004-12-02 08:42 · Score: 1

I need to get me into prison! I just have to make sure i don't stab out anyone's face with a sword so I can play me some RPGz. Or some such. Working as a full time software engineer doesn't leave much gaming time anymore :(
appropriate game choice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 08:43 · Score: 0

I think it'd be funny if the inmates were allowed to play something like "The Suffering."
Nerds Aren't Violent by Chi+Hsuan+Men · 2004-12-02 08:48 · Score: 3, Funny

> Jacqueline Helfgott said: "They're not afraid to engage in violence, unlike the nerd sitting in front of his computer."

Funny, because I'm a nerd, and I have sudden urge to bitchslap someone.

--
Respect It.
OMG by Glog · 2004-12-02 08:50 · Score: 1

OMG, the most violent criminals will no longer have access to the most violent games? Doh, now they'll just have to go back to killing *real* people... It's in the brain and the character, stupid... a game does not a criminal make, just as a criminal is not going to reform all of sudden if you let them play "Shangri-La: Adventures with Jesus 3"!
1. Re:OMG by GearType2 · 2004-12-03 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  umm... coming from someone who lived in that city for 19 years, I can tell you that first and foremost the "most violent criminals" do not live in that prison. The prison itself is really low security compared to most and it's used most of the time for lower crimes or people ending their last few terms or just people that have been on good standing.
  I'm seriously surprised at the slashdot communtity this time around. We constantly argue how games do not make violent people, only violent people do. But on this end of the deal, the games make them more violent just because they are criminals? We've always argued it allows a outlet for aggression and tension right? Why not in this situation? These are not crazed lunatics in this prison, most of them did what they felt like they had to do in many situations.
  I hate to throw another topic out but what if, just what if, they had games like these when they were kids?
How would the nerdy prisoners be safer? by Alcimedes · 2004-12-02 08:54 · Score: 1

Science fiction and sports games were not pulled as part of the sweep, so more nerdy prisoners will not be affected by the changes."

So now we have the more violent criminals sitting around with nothing to do, while the geeky ones still get to enjoy their video games. Yeah, I'm sure nothing bad could possibly arise from that situation.
1. Re:How would the nerdy prisoners be safer? by Pxtl · 2004-12-02 09:52 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Besides that, last time I checked the nerdy prisoners are the ones who'd play violent games and the beefy prisoners would probably more likely to be playing the sports games, not vice versa.
2. Re:How would the nerdy prisoners be safer? by owlstead · 2004-12-02 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  That would negate the previous remark. It would leave the beefy prisoners playing video games and the nerds would probably go muscle up or something. Errr....
Our Criminal Justice system is broken. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 09:05 · Score: 0

I think the real question is why they had them in the first place?

a pretty fair question IMO.

Yes, I understand the argument that it's easier to keep them in line if they're docile,

This is a straw man arguement put up by groups sympathetic to prisioners and correctional officers. It's not that hard to keep these men in line if a warden really wants to.

What really needs to be done, is a whole reformation of the criminal justice system. A DWI in some states gets you a year on first offense. Some drug offenses carry as much time as rape. Rape is condoned by both the criminal justice system and the general public as a tool for prisoner punishment in the criminal justice system even though that punishment is never handed out fairly, and is usually handed out among racial lines (ie if you are white you are more likely to get ASSFUCKED)

but c'mon... I can't tell you how many times I've wished for a place where the meals were prepared for me, could play video games, and not have any responsibilities to worry about (like work).

Plus you get TV, a free gym membership, and a job!

The more prisons offer to the inmates, the more inclined people are to WANT to go there.

Exactly, but there is a movement of people in America that are detached from reality that think 'rehabilitiation is the most important thing in prison'. While I think helping a criminal with their problems is a good thing, making prison a viable alternative to being free as far as comfort goes is fucking idiotic.

There needs to be a real seperation made between violent criminals and non-violent ones. There is no way someone guilty of a 'violent' crime should have video games in Jail. 23 hour lockdown is the best thing for the saftey of everyone.

Even if they commit a lesser crime for the shorter sentence, it might end up being a choice vacation spot.

I don't mind that Martha Stewart went to a "country club" type prison. For someone of her stature, the embarassment, finacial loss, and the cold boot of reality hitting her in the ass is enough. I don't need her to be raped by "bubbaette" nor do I think that would be just.

If anyone is wondering why I actually care about this stuff, I was a Criminal Justice major before switching to Computer Science.
1. Re:Our Criminal Justice system is broken. by Pxtl · 2004-12-02 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  Rehabilitation _IS_ the most important job of a prison. The problem is that limp-wristed idiots think that coddling felons is gonna help them be rehabilitated. Its not. If a guy is so homniscidal that he needs electroshock therapy before he can function in normal society, then bring out the electrodes. That's rehabilitation.
  
  If a thug goes in there and rapes and pillages his 5 years away, spending half his time high up on nose candy and living like a king, then odds are he won't be deterred from coming back. If he comes back, then he's not rehabilitated.
  
  Deterrent and rehabilitation go hand in hand. There are millions of out-of-work MAs and PhDs in socio and pysch out there - train them as guards, put 'em to work in the prisons, and make their jobs dependant on the out-of-prison behaviour of their charges.
2. Re:Our Criminal Justice system is broken. by Mr.+Slippery · 2004-12-06 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  Deterrent and rehabilitation go hand in hand.
  
  No. Deterrance teaches "don't get caught doing this again". Rehabilitation turns the convict into someone who doesn't want to commit their crime again. If deterrance worked, recitivism rates would be low.
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
In other news, by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 09:07 · Score: 0

death-row inmate Joseph "Stabby Joe" Stabynski has set the new world record in Mario Party 6.
Mod parent higher ... by gstoddart · 2004-12-02 09:19 · Score: 1

Yeah - 3 square meals, no work, no rent, oh... and that pesky forced-anal-raping and beat-downs daily*. But hey - free cable and video games!

As funny as he makes it sound, I really can't imagine with all of the appaling stuff that can happen in prison (*) that a friggin' video game would be an incentive to want to be in there. Free cable neither.

(*) Which oddly enough much of my understnading also comes from shows like Oz, and I suspect I'd be on about the same timeline as the parent poster as far as survival goes.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1. Re:Mod parent higher ... by BTWR · 2004-12-02 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  hahaa, that reminds me of a promo for Oz before it's 5th season...
  A skinny businessman is walking the city street of manhattan, casually. He crumbles throws out a piece of paper into a public garbage. It bounces off the top and onto the street, next to a NO LITTERING sign. The guy is like "whatever, it's a friggin piece of paper" and keep walking. 4 steps later, the camera zooms in to his face, and he's petrified...
  The next 10 seconds show VERY FAST and brief flashes from Oz: people being raped, beaten, gangbanged, burned, screaming, crying, locked up, naked, etc...
  Flashes back to the guy. He sees what prison is like, quickly turns back and picks up the piece of paper and puts it properly in the garbage...
Is it just me... by MisterMoney · 2004-12-02 09:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

...or does it seem a little strange that we allow PRISONERS to play video games? Aren't they supposed to be in there to be punished?
1. Re:Is it just me... by SuiteSisterMary · 2004-12-03 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  No, they're in there to be kept out of society.
  
  Some very general background: the penal system used to consist of actual punishments; flogging, beating, confiscation of property, execution, forced-reparations, banishment, and so on.
  
  England would use jails to hold prisioners waiting for deportation to Austrailia, or the New World, or whatever, and eventually, they decided to just let people rot in jail.
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Dammit. by ayersrj · 2004-12-02 09:22 · Score: 2, Funny

Looks like Thug Life over in Block C is going to have his Atari 2600 and Keystone Kapers confiscated.
Ummm, ow by admanb · 2004-12-02 09:33 · Score: 1

... Honestly, is there ANY part of this article that does not cause a self-inflicted how-could-they-be-this-stupid beating of head against a wall?

We've got: giving prisoners video games, being unaware the content of said games, taking games with violent content from prisoners, insulting geeks for no reason, calling sports games "geeky" games. Anything else?

*commences with the beating of head against wall*

--
Adam
Only violent video games? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 09:36 · Score: 0

I dunno. I'm thinking that allowing female-deprived inmates the opportunity to play Dead or Alive Extreme Volleyball 12 hours a day may lead to some problems in prison as well (particularly for slender white inmates)...
actually by Llevar · 2004-12-02 09:49 · Score: 2, Funny

...your skinny white jewish ass might be quite the commodity there.
To all those whining about prisoners playing games by Khuffie · 2004-12-02 10:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Any of you read the article?

The games were paid for from inmates' purchases -- mostly of snacks -- at the prison canteen. The canteen generates up to $20,000 monthly and a committee of corrections officials, prison staffers and several inmates decides how to spend it.
Much of the cash is used for weightlifting and exercise equipment. Video games are a new purchase in Jefferson City; prison officials say other facilities have done the same, though it doesn't appear to be the norm.
"It has a good effect on helping us run the prison and make sure they're busy and not trying to work on ways to escape or harm others," Dormire said. "That's kind of our bottom line -- public safety."

A) the prisoners paid for them.
B) It helps keep them busy.
Just a hunch by AbsurdProverb · 2004-12-02 11:15 · Score: 1

But I get the feeling much of the trash talk that usually takes place within video gaming isn't going on there. Take Madden 05 for instance More Geeky Inmate: Ha ha Farve just made you his bitch Large Black Inmate: Right after this game I'm gonna tatoo tits on your back and really make you my bitch!
Living in a Geeks Paradise by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 11:21 · Score: 0

lets see... 3 squares a day, computers and video games. If they allowed weekly whore visits... I might try my hand at some low hanging felonies, lol.
Double spend? by urbaer · 2004-12-02 15:39 · Score: 1

Hang on. The inmates pay for food, the profits of which go towards buying stuff for the prisoners...

So they get to spend the money twice (well maybe not twice, maybe 1.25 times depending on profit margin)? Where do they get the money from in the first place? And where else are they going to spend it?
1. Re:Double spend? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 18:26 · Score: 0
  
  Actually many of the prisoners in our corporate run prison system have jobs working for other corporations. Sweatshops, Call centers, etc.
  
  Since they are in prison you don't have to follow minimum wage laws, and you get an unskilled workforce for 35 cents an hour.
  
  And then, sell them food so they don't get to save any money in prison. Wouldn't want them to get out with any money, or else they might not resort to crime again, and then you'd lose your worker.
  
  Prison for profit is scary to me.
In a nutshell by Zareste · 2004-12-02 19:38 · Score: 1

"Guess I'll have to go back to shooting real people."

Thanks conservative nut jobs.

--
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
Snacks != food by phorm · 2004-12-02 20:55 · Score: 1

They're not selling food, they're selling snacks. Prisoners still eat on food paid for by the "system," but I'm assuming that the Canteen supplies their ice-cream and diet-coke fix, for a price...

As for the double-dipping, I'm hoping that some of this goes to paying the cost of food, and the rest (profit) can go towards facility upgrading.
Nerds will be affected by xetaprag · 2004-12-03 07:16 · Score: 1

I can't a imagine a prison "nerd" whose not someone's b**ch. The rest of the population loses their favorite video games, they're probably going to be looking for altenative sources of entertainment.
Prisoners playing games? by distortion311 · 2004-12-06 19:18 · Score: 0

Okay, so is anyone looking at this as outrageous? I'm not worried that they can't play violent video games. I'm worried that they can play any games. I mean, these people are incarserated because they did not conform to legal standards. Many of them are cold blooded killers. It's wrong to give killers a taste of what they love when there being punished for doing it. More over, jail is supposed to scare you straight. I'm no longer as worried about jail if I can still do the only thing I really ever do. I think the FBI should track anyone who even buys Hitman games, I mean come on, a contract killer? How negative an imfluence does that have on the Human physchi? I know, I played the game. You sneak up behind unsuspecting, in many instinances even innocent people and strangle them to death with piano wire. I was once discussing with a friend in school this game, and was overheard by the principle at my High-School. It took hours to convince them I was talkking about a game and not and actual act that I intended to perform. I say it's a good thing. ~Distortion