All Games Banned From MO Prisons

A while back we mentioned that Missouri pulled violent games from prisons on the basis that hardened criminals shouldn't be practicing their sharpshooting technique. Now, the new governor has removed all video games from the MO prison system. From the AP story: "Blunt, a Republican who took office two weeks ago, called video games 'a luxury that inmates should not be allowed to enjoy.'"

Comments

Give Inmates Skills

[__aaitqo8496]

While I understand that inmates deserve some rights (despite their lack of liberty), I think this is a step in the right directions. Let's try actually _educating_ those that need it. Without video games and TV, maybe inmates will have to resort to... reading. If you haven't graduated high school, I think that a program to help you earn your GED would be particularly helpful.

Instead of encouraging the downward spiral of crime, let's give people skills to use if they wish to fix their ways.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[OAB_X]

Without video games and TV, maybe inmates will have to resort to... reading.

To this example, one of the greatest short story writers of all time, O. Henry was imrpisoned, he read almost constantly. I dont think that a video games in prison will help develop the next O. Henry, unless you count memorizing the books of text in Morrowind to be reading.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[orangesquid]

I've never seen why jails aren't more like boarding school with therapy centers for the /really/ messed up people.

If someone's parents fail to raise them well, or someone's environment shapes them poorly, or someone suffers through tragic events and doesn't learn to cope, their condition is not their fault (although their actions are), but, the condition can be reversed, and the actions can't.

This whole concept of "adult time-out" is stupid. Turning 18 doesn't(shouldn't) change "getting grounded" from lasting a few days or hours to lasting months to years to decades.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[alienw]

I don't have any personal experience with this, but I do know that every job application always asks about convictions. Given how tight the job market is, I'd be surprised if you could get any job with a felony conviction.

I agree that if criminals got education while they were in prison everyone would be far better off -- including the taxpayer. If we reduced recidivism, we would have a very low crime rate in this country. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Of course, the average constituent is too stupid to realize that being "tough on crime" only leads to tougher criminals and more crime. You can't expect someone to spend 10+ years in prison and somehow become a normal member of society.

If you really want to cut down on recidivism and reduce crime, you would need to have an integrated solution -- one that involves education, vocational training, and some kind of job placement assistance. Even then, a sizable percentage of criminals will relapse, putting the whole program into a bad light. I think it is probably sufficient to say that every country with a low crime rate has such a system in place.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[damiam]

I've never seen why jails aren't more like boarding school with therapy centers for the /really/ messed up people.

Because boarding schools are expensive.

Political motivation?

[(trb001)]

Blunt, a Republican...

Was it really necessary or worthwhile to label him a Republican in the AP article? I'm not necessarily saying there's an obvious bias, but would the author have included this statement had he been a Democrat? Politics have nothing to do with this story at all.

--trb

Politics has everything to do with the story

[AtariAmarok]

From the article: "Now, the new governor has removed all video games from the MO prison system. From the AP story: "Blunt, a Republican who took office"

How can a story about a politician doing something in office fit with your statement "Politics have nothing to do with this story at all" ? If this story has nothing to do with politics, then no story does. Let us next go to the dictionary definition of politics: "The art or science of government or governing". Hmmm. Do you think that prison policy by the Missouri government might count as "governing"? Could be....

Learning is expensive

[MMaestro]

I agree with you, inmates in prison should spend their time reading books instead of watching TV, playing video games or spending way, way too much time lifting weights on sitting doing nothing in their cells. BUT, education isn't 100% the solution either. You'd be hard-pressed to find teachers willing to educate inmates (read : high paying salaries) and chances are most of them won't go along with the program (read : destroyed books and supplies). It COULD work but on a macro level (state or nationwide), it would just be seen as a waste of government money.

Re:Learning is expensive

[Ayaress]

Learning is pretty cheap. My school district uses more uncertified teachers than certified. Their average salary is $22,000 a year, and each one either teaches an average of 35 students all subjects (elementary school), or around 350 students one subject (middle/high school).

Each student costs the district around $4000, however, most of this is textbooks, which are purchased at worse prices than prescription drugs, and are replaced far more often than they need it (Except for the computer books, which hadn't been replaced since 1985 when I graduated), and various other supplies (Science classes are most expensive, math and literiture following close behind due to calculators and additional books).

However, most of this can be cut out. Hard science? Drop it, it's expensive or because it could give convicts access to chemicals they could use as drugs (or worse, not use as drugs but try anyway) if that's the kind of politician you are. Math? Cut most of that, and teach them a business math class. They'll find far more use for it anyway. Literiture? Screw it, stick some books in the library and if they want to read, have at it.

Limit the classes to basic skills: Language, business math, computer use, communication. It's not a well rounded education, but it will give them a good shot at a far better life than most of them were in that got them in prison to begin with.

As for books, don't burn $200 per student on new books every year. Get throwaways from the local high school or university, and stock the library out of the public library's anual $1 book sale. By limiting the class offering to the above, most of those books will be good for as long as they last, and shouldn't need constant updating.

Learning's only expensive for students because they're taught just about everything, so they can do just about everything. Convicts are another matter. Just the fact that they're convicts alone is going to severely limit their job options, regardless of how they are personally. What they need is a targeted education with a narrow set of useful skills that will let them get decent jobs and even continue their education after they're released.

Re:Learning is expensive

[SoTuA]

Learning is pretty cheap. My school district uses more uncertified teachers than certified. Their average salary is $22,000 a year, and each one either teaches an average of 35 students all subjects (elementary school), or around 350 students one subject (middle/high school).

Now find one willing to work for 22k teaching inmates instead of kids.

Although, in some parts, the inmates would be safer than the kids, since the inmates are less likely to be packing guns...

Rehabilitataion vs. Punishment

[American AC in Paris]

Quoth Blunt:

Our penitentiaries are punitive institutions where those who have committed crimes against society are sent to pay for their actions.

Whatever happened to rehabilitation? When did we become a nation that values vindication over elevation?

Video games could be used as a reward--stay on good behavior, complete a VoTech course, get gaming privs. They could be a useful tool; they're something an inmate desires, so make it something they strive to get.

But no. First things first: punish the criminal. After all, if we give 'em reasons to be happy or comfortable, they won't be suffering for their crimes--and that's what matters. Make 'em pay.

Heck, why not just turn all 5+ year prison terms into life sentences? All a long prison sentence does for most people these days is make 'em even worse than they were when they went in. It's not like our "tough on crime" policies are designed to make them better people while they're on the inside...

Re:Rehabilitataion vs. Punishment

[miu]

Whatever happened to rehabilitation? When did we become a nation that values vindication over elevation?

Imprisonment, fines, confiscation, execution, exile, torture, humiliation, enslavement, and all other forms of social revenge were the traditional means by which society has enforced its will. The concept of rehabilitation is a fairly new addition to the punishment aspect of prison. I believe it is a useful addition, but it is secondary.

I'm sure someone in this thread will try to use reductio ad absurdum to prove that acknowledging the social revenge aspect of the criminal justice system will somehow eventually result in executing litterbugs, but the fact remains that reasonable negative reinforcement is a useful tool in rehabilitation and serves to satisfy the victim of a crime that justice has been done.

Re:Prisoners should have basic human rights too.

[over_exposed]

I'm sorry, I don't think that *I* failed someone in prison for rape, theft, murder or drug dealing. I don't think it was society either. I think that they made the choices that they did and because of that, I don't feel that I should pay (through taxes) for their Xboxes, PS2s, televisions and game titles.
I agree that prisoners deserve basic human rights (food, shelter, etc.) but that does not, under ANY circumstances, include Grand Theft Auto or Monkey Ball. I don't even think it includes television, cable or broadcast. Why should prisoners who have been caught doing illegal things have access to certain things by default when half the country (exaggeration) can't even afford them?
If they want the news, they can get a news paper. If they want to kill some aliens, too damn bad.

Gaming is not a right

[shodson]

Gaming is not a right, it's a privilege, one of which you should lose when you break the law. I don't see how video games help rehabilitate an inmate, unless they give them computers to learn how to build their own video games...

Nice, but what about predators?

[redelm]

While teaching the disadvantaged is attractive, not everyone who commits crime does so out of necessity.

Many criminals are simply predators who view law-abiding citizens are their rightful prey. Short of unconstitutional mind-altering, they're going to leave prison with exactly the same view. Trainging will help nothing. Vidgames will make the incarceration easier to bear (boredom is the punishment), and may hone skills.

Re:Prisoners should have basic human rights too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I disagree with you, but you do realize that they're still going to get the same am't of pay for their mandatory labor (I think it's =50 cents an hour most places), and that they're still going to spend this on "negative items" like cigarettes as opposed to donating to charity, buying textbooks and starting a nest egg, right?

There was no video game tax ever - there was a prisoner-pay system, and that is just not going away.

Re:Prisoners should have basic human rights too.

[togofspookware]

> I don't feel that I should pay
>(through taxes) for their Xboxes,
> PS2s, televisions and game titles.

RTFA, f00l:
> The games, which were paid for with
> profits from the prison canteen,

Personally, I am of the opinion that giving prisoners something to do other than pounding eachother in the ass can only be a good thing, whether it's paid with tax dollars or not. Prison should be about rehabilitation, not punishment.

Re:Not quite right

[Parsec]

I think it's rather ignorant that you believe people mentally messed up enough to kill or rape will be dissuaded by the death penalty... even that it crosses their mind that they will eventually be caught, or if they even expect to live long enough to get caught and executed. That threat may stop a mostly functional person, like yourself.

Also, please remember that we are still reversing sentences via the efforts of groups like the Justice Project. Do you really want to be responsible for the deaths of innocent people wrongfully convicted? There's no way to undo a wrongful execution, but we can always release someone sentenced to life with no parole.

Re:Not quite right

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I just LOVE it when one of you right wingers expresses such extreme confidence in the ability of our government to accurately determine if someone is guilty, but you also still continue to believe that government screws up everything it touches.

That's a serious problem in consistency, and I bet you that you can't see it. You'll come up with a complicated way to either justify it, or change the subject.

Re:What pisses me off here is

[damian cosmas]

ahhh... the extremely valuable leisure time of prison inmates, and the evil republicans taking it away... Whether the focus is on the rehabilitive or retributive aspects of incarceration, it seems like "relaxation and fun" should not be high on the list of priorities for accomplishing the goals of imprisonment. Ironically, if you read "loose" as a verb, it undermines your entire screed.

Re:Not quite right

[Phisbut]

I think it's rather ignorant that you believe people mentally messed up enough to kill or rape will be dissuaded by the death penalty...

It might not dissuade them from doing it the first time, but it will damn well prevent them from recidivating.

Re:I agree

[dynamo]

So you are saying suicide is never ever justified?

I disagree. Think hostages. Think terminal illness. Think Abu Ghirab. Think cyanide pills for spies about to be interrogated. Think Darl McBride. Think George W. Bush. Think of those self-immolating monks on the cover of that Rage Against the Machine album.

Sometimes, in extreme circumstances, it can be an appropriate and well-thought-out action.

Re:I agree

[Unordained]

The fact that I'm not married but live with my girlfriend "hurts" my mother too, but that's no reason to throw me in a mental hospital or use laws to change my behavior. If we had to consider everyone who would be hurt or offended by our uses of personal liberty, we'd never get anywhere (there's always someone.) Your first argument was better than your second.

As to mental illness, I still find it offensive that we just (blanket-statement) declare those who attempt suicide to be mentally ill and no longer responsible for their actions, needing to be placed under someone's guardianship until they recover. We should be very careful with this sort of thinking. If we do this withouth thinking it through and carefully justifying our decisions, we're not very far away from the realm of "gays are mentally ill" or "rebels are mentally ill" or "communists are mentally ill". (It's not a slippery slope; but it's equally unjustified.)

"How could anyone in their right mind possibly do something like that?" is what you mean by "normal people [...] never do." It also means that someone who is terminally ill (say, with cancer or AIDS) is no longer allowed to make the decision to die slightly early to ease the pain. Obviously, they're mentally ill to wish such a thing, right? Maybe we should just drug them up some more until they can't tell what's going on; at least vegetables don't try to commit suicide.

In case the morons haven't noticed...

[ClioCJS]

... Keeping a prison running smoothly is incredibly hard. Why, they can't even keep drugs out of prisons! The argument has been made in the past that prisoners should not get cable television as well.

Guess what folks? Entertained prisoners are less likely to riot and less likely to stick you with a shiv. Prisoners cost $30K a year for us to house, and that's not counting the medical costs when Joe gets shivved in the nutsuck by Malcolm.

It's simple cost-benefit analysis. If you want to spend more money, go ahead, but our prison system is already doomed for failure. At our current rate of increase of incarceration, 50% of americans will be in prison by the time we reach retirement. THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Something is going to break before then. (Hopefully the drug laws.)

But these people calling for mandatory 5 year sentences for any felony? Hate to break it to you, but if you've downloaded an mp3, you've committed a felony. Just about anything can be considered a felony. Steal a mailbox? Felony. Anyone saying someone deserves 5 yrs in prison for stealing a mailbox, at a cost to taxpayers of $150,000 (not counting court and legal costs), should be incarcerated themselves for being a fucking kneejerk dolt.

And america has the highest incarceration rate of any nation in the country. We are the LEAST FREE country on the planet. Prisons are not solving out problems, and turning them into gulags isn't going to help anything either. Grow the fuck up.

Re:Not quite right

[Anonymous Coward]

It might not dissuade them from doing it the first time, but it will damn well prevent them from recidivating.

On the other hand, the guarantee of a death penalty means you have a heck of a lot less to lose.

Consider the situation where a man murders his wife. If he knows that whatever the situation, whatever mitigating circumstances there may be, whatever he pleads, however much he cooperates, he will be executed if it is found that he murdered her, do you think he is more or less likely to commit other murders to try to cover it up? Do you think he is more or less likely to resist arrest with deadly force?

The current system - where a man who turns himself in without a struggle, cooperates with the police, admits guilt, shows genuine remorse, and provides in his defence evidence that his wife had been sleeping with three other men behind his back, is unlikely to receive a death sentence - is therefore clearly superior.

And, the thing is, the same arguments apply to the second offense. We probably don't want to be setting the guy free ever again, if he's a repeat offender. But there are tangible benefits to society to be gained by rewarding him for cooperating. At the most fundamental level, it makes sense for a man to be more likely to escape the death penalty if he turns himself in than if he commits further crimes.

(Note that I'm not arguing for the abolition of the death penalty. I'm arguing for the status quo, with maybe a reduction in the number of cases in which a death sentence is passed, but an increase in the speed with which that sentence is carried out when it is passed.)

Re:Not quite right

[Shajenko42]

There are very good arguments against applying the death penalty so capriciously or frequently, that work for people like you who think compassion is bad and societally enforced revenge is good.

Simply, when you have someone who has committed one of the crimes you have said are worthy of death, what happens when the cops try to arrest this guy? If he has any sense at all, he'll try to get away, mostly likely by shooting at the cops. After all, what's he got to lose? They'll kill him anyway.

So, by advocating such frequent use of the death penalty, you are putting our police force in greater danger. Why do you hate them so much?