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

To be blunt about this.

[AtariAmarok]

"Blunt, a Republican..."

Looking for a new bill co-signed by State Legislator Doobie.

Re:To be blunt about this.

[Ohreally_factor]

<Gobi>Or representative BONGHIT!!!</Gobi>

Re:To be blunt about this.

[Meagermanx]

I am in MO, and I campaigned against this guy. Lemme tell you, I have heard that joke Sooooo many time ;)

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

[EnderWigginsXenocide]

They won't be getting their mad gaming skillz anymore d00d!

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[__aaitqo8496]

"You know, like nunchuck skills, bowhunting skills, computer hacking skills."

Sorry, read my title and couldn't resist the Napoleon Dynamite reference

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[damian cosmas]

Said inmates could just as easily resort to developing further the skills that got them in there in the first place. Illiteracy rates in prison are, what, 5x those of the general population?

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

[chris_mahan]

Dude, I know it's ultra-cynical, but Machiavellianism tells me a government should not be educating people who will most likely be inclined to criticize and even try to overthrow it.

The American revolution happened only because educated and highly eloquent people wrote and spoke openly against the British Crown, seeking at first only redress of grievances, not seeking independence until it was painfully obvious that the British monarchy wanted to retain complete power.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[alienw]

There isn't much of a point in educating those people, considering that you can't even get a job at McDonalds with a felony conviction on your record. Absolutely no one wants to hire people who have a criminal record, so about the only thing the criminals have left is a life of crime. I find it amazing that the rate of recidivism is only 70% or so. Maybe we just aren't able to catch the other 30%.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[shawb]

And while you're at it, why not actually educate the youth and make sure that they have the proper skills to be "productive members of society" and don't land in jail in the first place.

And I mean more than just reading, wrting and arithmetic. Bring back some of the tech and trade skills to school. Shop: Auto, wood, metal. "home ec" can lead to a succesfull career as a chef, baker, etc. Of course, offer programming classes and other high tech fields should be offered at some level.

Offer classes which may interest the large chunk of people who probably aren't interested in the standard curriculum. Show them that there are careers out there that are important, rewarding and, well, legal.

Yes, some students will still fall through the cracks. But I believe that in the long run, proper education will go a lot further in preventing crime than punishment ever will.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[fuzzybunny]

Call me what you will, but somehow I doubt that most prison inmates are there because of activities and thoughts against the prevailing political order.

The American revolution revolved around taxation without representation, and several related issues; many others have come about to deal with issues ranging from democratic representation and freedom from oppression to economic injustice, what have you.

While I'm sure there are people incarcerated in American jails because of conscious activities against unjust laws, I'll go out on a limb and claim that theft, assault, extortion, murder and their ilk are not in the same class, say what you will about profiling and the "war on drugs".

Most people in jail are simply not patriots, freedom fighters, revolutionaries, whatever--they committed a crime for personal motives.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[fm6]

If you haven't graduated high school, I think that a program to help you earn your GED would be particularly helpful.

And also cost-effective in terms of running the prison. Inmates in classes or doing homework are too busy to cause trouble, which means you can get by with fewer guards.

The problem is that any program that make incarceration less unpleasant arouses a kneejerk Don't-Coddle-The-Criminals backlash. I don't know about Missouri, but my own state (California) has slashed spending on educational programs for prisoners, even as we've made prison time mandatory for more and more crimes. Basically there would be no programs at all in this state if there weren't a lot of volunteers willing to donate teaching time.

Privatized prisons, which have a lot of incentive to control costs, often do so by keeping prisoners busy in educational and recreational programs. They always take flack for these programs, even though they're saving the taxpayers money. Too many people won't accept prisons as anything except a place of punishment, even if it costs more to run them. Not to mention the social costs when unrehabilitated prisoners are dumped out at the end of their terms.

It's a minor point, but banning violent video is the same kind of kneejerk nonsense. Its absurd to think that the cartoon violence in a game means anything to people who experience much nastier things every day. Until we get away from this stupid, self-righteous thinking, prisons are not going to get any better.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[SithGod]

While the fact that there are people that wouldn't hire due to a felony conviction, a lot of this is also due to the fact that those same people are not educated enough to due the tasks necessary for a basic job. Educating them in prison would allow them to come out and, while not get the best jobs, at least be able to have a set of skills useful for the real world

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[chris_mahan]

Ok, you're right. Fine.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[BoomerSooner]

Great just what we need, to educate these criminals so they can be more devious when they get out of jail. Educating criminals will just make better criminals. They need to stand in the corner and stare at the wall until they are sufficiently rehabilitated.

That arguement was just as stupid as the one where criminals learn sharpshooting from video games. I cannot remember the last person killed while the shooter had an XBox controller in their hand. Guns don't require a difficult skill set to learn, otherwise we wouldn't have so many redneck hunters.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[WarPresident]

Those classes exist, assuming you have a Vocational-Technical High School in your county. You can even enroll in both the regular High School and take "shop" in the afternoons at the Vo-Tech to get the best of both worlds. Solid academics and a trade skill. They're probably a bit more scarce in the fly-over states, but there are some really good schools out there.

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

[harrkev]

While I agree with much of what you have to say, I must address your comment:

Of course, the average constituent is too stupid to realize that being "tough on crime" only leads to tougher criminals and more crime.

And the alternative is to go soft on crime, and reduce the penalties in the hope that this will reduct the crime rate?

Perhaps if we eliminated the court system entirely, and tore down the prisons, then theft and murder would disappear entirely!

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[joeljkp]

My father used to work as a prison therapist when he and my mother were short on cash. The pay was bad, and the experience was worse. He said he came home mentally weary and strung out every day after being in that place.

The prison system needs to be reformed completely. No small step like putting more therapists in the prisons will do it.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[gl4ss]

hehheh - or another look on it, make everything boring enough and you'll have to start taking drugs to pass the time. yes, drugs in prison are common.

videogames would probably have been quite a cheap way to keep the guys in there occupied with something non lethal. hell, maybe have them compete in halo or something... give them some substance to life beyond just buttfucking and taking smuggled dope.

but the us prison system in all it's size seems more to be made for comforting the victims outside rather than turning the inmates to something civilised(justice pretty much meaning revenge), and of course being just a business - you wouldn't want to make your business lose customers, would you? fatal design flaw.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[Ash-Fox]

Someone who killed a few people can't go kill people in other countries for the army (like the Americans do in Iraq).

Someone who used to break into houses and steal stuff can't get a job as a security consultant.

Someone who was scamming millions of people can't become a telemarketer!

Someone who hacked in some company will definitly be unable to get any job in computting!

If anyone is willing to help me with more examples, go ahead.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[alienw]

As someone said, "for every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat - and wrong." Increasing prison sentences is one of these really obvious and completely wrong solutions to the complex problem of reducing crime.

First, sending a criminal to prison has both positive and negative effects. The positive effects consist mostly of the unpleasantness factor and the temporary removal of said criminal from society. The negative effects include prolonged interaction with other criminals, the development of violent tendencies and grudges against society, and the fact that the criminal gets used to prison and it's no longer a particularly effective punishment.

Basically, what happens when you send, say, a burglar to jail for two years is as follows. The first two to four weeks they suffer. Then, they start to get used to it. A somewhat normal person with criminal tendencies will easily turn into a violent sociopath. After all, fighting is the preferred way to resolve conflicts in prison. The whole time they interact with more serious criminals. Once the former burglar comes out, he has no inhibitions and is now an experienced criminal. He is no longer afraid of going to jail; it's no longer a deterrent, it's just a mild occupational hazard.

My solution would be to lock him up for, perhaps, three weeks in a more controlled environment (jail block for first offenders only, lots of supervision to ensure fights don't break out). Then add a year or two of probation. He will probably suffer more while he is locked up (any prison is a nasty place to be). He will not interact with hardened criminals, and he will not spend enough time there to become desensitized. Once he comes out, he will be too afraid to risk going to jail for a longer time, and the probation period will act as a reminder.

Which of these punishments will be more likely to turn this criminal into a repeat offender?

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[AvitarX]

True, but not easy to get into.

In my area to counteract the stigmatism of being for stupid people the tech schools started activly looking for better students and became more selective.

The very students that should be encouraged or even forced to go to these schools could not go if they wanted to. What we really need is tech schools to be the default for high school in this country and strait high schools to be only for academic life bound. The tech schools here have about the same college rate as the general high schools.

Even though people will not nessiserily be able to get jobs in the area they studied at tech school a work focused education would lead to a better understanding of what was expected of people when they worked. Of course better adherance to existing school policy would probably take care of that too. 40 absences a school year is bullshit.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[Golias]

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


I'll tell you why.

If somebody stabs one of my beloved relatives in a parking ramp, I want the bastard thrown into a dark and dingy hole with nothing to do but regret the miserable course his life has followed, and I don't want him let out any time soon, no matter how much his attitude seems to improve. I don't care who's "fault" it is that they became a total screw-up who can't function in society without hurting people. I just want the thug locked in a cage where he can't stab people I care about.

Now, if you want to discuss not making somebody share a cage with an animal like that just for smoking reefer, I'm more than willing to discuss altertatives.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[SithGod]

Actually, a lot of former hackers are hired as security consultants due to the fact they they are able to look at a system and see the holes. Other than that, I would agree that if a person has comitted a crime, they should not be put in a position where it would be easy to do it again. There are, however, more than enough jobs out there that this wouldn't be a major issue.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[Unordained]

France has a system similar to this. At the end of 9th grade, you take a test (Brevet) to determine whether or not you're really fit for university studies. If you are, you go to a standard high school, and pick a specialty (language/arts, math, physics, biology, economics, etc.). You're expected to continue on to university studies in whatever specialty you've chosen. If you don't pass the test, you have the option of moving on to various tech-ish schools, again specializing into whatever field you seem interested in. You're not really expected to do university studies as a result, but you should be able to find a job. There's less stigma than with tech schools in the states, but still some. I had friends who went the alternate route, and though one got hired and trained in accounting right out of it, he still wasn't happy he hadn't made it into the "normal" high school. "Equal but separate" rarely works. Maybe if it were entirely up to the student (not based on scores) but even then ...

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[janoc]

Well, this is easier said than done. You can try to do therapy with somebody, however it will have an effect if and only if he/she wants to change. Otherwise it is a waste of time and money.

Most people are in prisons not because they want, but because they were forcibly locked up there by state. That is not very conducive to rehabilitation programs, such activities are usually used only as an opportunity to get out of the cell.

IMHO, many people that are sent to prisons and other correctional facilities do not belong there at all. E.g. if you lock up a teen which got caught with a dose or two of drugs for the first time, that will certainly not help his/her future life prospects. Such kids should go to the rehabilitation program, not behind bars. That way you could avoid the problem of the therapy in prisons altogether.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[Geccoman]

They can start with ABC's for Barbarians and then work their way up to the more in-depth books like the Sermons of Vivec. It could be a truly educational experience... right?

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[arkanes]

This is the core of opposition to the current prison system. You aren't interested in justice or health or the benefit of society - you want revenge. There are a lot of people who believe that your reasons for wanting that are harmful and that it's not a good way to run a society.

And, as you have no doubt noticed, I have to largely agree. Relatives of a victim are the last people we should be listening to, because they are the least likely to think clearly or rationally about anything. You see this all the time with high-profile legal cases - people decide based on emotion rather than facts. Being arrested for, say, child molestation will basically ruin your life no matter how ridiculous the evidence is, and whether you're convicted or not.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[gstoddart]

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

Well, unfortunately many of the people in prisons don't want to be treated like they've been sent to a boarding school to learn how to make their life better.

If they don't participate in your programs, they're meaningless.

Obviously, we need to do more than just warehouse these people as cheaply as possible. But forcing them to participate (or worse, naively assuming they will) isn't really going to solve much.

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.

Sounds good in theory, but if that person has extremely violent/antisocial behaviour, substance abuse problems, and generally doesn't give a crap about what you think, what do you expect to accomplish? Sometimes people are in there because nothing else worked, and they finally did something huge.

The problem with taking away all of the video games and the like is you end up with a bunch of locked up, cranky and bored people in a very confined space.

Being able to rehabilitate more people is obviously a good thing -- but you can't realistically force someone to be rehabilitated (unless you want to try something like in Clockwork Orange).

Cheers

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[dave1g]

Does the military still have the program where at conviction a perosn can instead decide to serve in the military instead of in a prison?

I know they had it in the Vietnam era, one of my teachers fixed his life around by joining the military.

I think this program shoudl be reinstituted. The grand majority of people who come out of the military say it was a good experience for them and for many of them it turned their lives around.

I'm not saying to use the military as an inmate daycare program. But for those who would rather receive training and help protect the country, I think we should let them do that instead of rot in jail. Now obviously you would have certain convictions where this wouldnt be allowed, such as murder and other violent crimes, but anyone else should be allowed an encouraged to serve their time in the military instead, where they can earn money and come out a better person.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[alienw]

that are caught are almost certainly not caught for their first offence

A first offender is someone who has no prior criminal record. I believe this is the generally accepted definition of this term. Federal law defines a first offender as one who "has not been convicted of a crime of violence or an otherwise serious offense."

Your burglar has almost certainly lived a life of crime for a long time.

Actually, that's rather uncommon. Stupid criminals get caught very quickly. Smarter ones can get away with it for a longer time, but most criminals are very stupid.

the only thing we can do is lock them away to prevent them committing more crimes.

In that case, we might as well impose life sentences for all offenses, regardless of severity. After all, if the criminals never stop committing crimes, that's the only way. Do you think this would be a good system?

if they are guilty of something other than possession of pot

Why exclude potheads? They are probably the ones that need to be locked up the longest. After all, they hardly ever quit.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[CrimsonAvenger]

Now obviously you would have certain convictions where this wouldnt be allowed, such as murder and other violent crimes,

I agree with your comment completely, but it is rather odd that you would suggest that violent people have no place in the military...after all, violence is what they do.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[dave1g]

I just thought it not smart to give people convicted of violent crimes assault machine guns which could be turned on our own troops.

But does anyone know if any policy like this is sitll in place?

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[CrimsonAvenger]

Well, the French Foreign Legion is still out there. Does that count?

Seriously, though. No, no such programs exist, largely because the militery's standards are high enough that most "common criminals" wouldn't qualify. Someone mentioned convists studying for a GED. If you need a GED, you're not qualified to be in the US Army.

As to "assault machine guns" (whatever they are), one must keep in mind that the average soldier has very limited access to military weapons - they're stored in an Armory, and issued as needed. Soldiers don't get handed a gun when they're done training, and keep it through their service career.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[dave1g]

The military needs to rethink its standards, the guard and reserve for the first time in years missed their recrutment levels by a lot. (cnn or time article sorry I cant cite it.)

It would be smart to give the GED training while in the military. Just as soldiers can earn college credits while serving.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[cnsc1rtr]

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

The only thing that 99% of inmates in the system learn in there is how to be better at crime. Going to jail or prison is like going to college for many people. However, they major in crime. Many small-time losers turn into career criminals because of their company inside. Hell, going to jail for a while will greatly improve the image of gangbangers once they are released.

The very few people that turn themselves around in prison doesn't justify the amount of money and time that is required to baby inmates with rehabilitation programs. (I mean criminal rehab; Drug rehab programs are still a good thing and have a much higher success rate).

/used to be a corrections officer

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[BoomerSooner]

I was being sarcastic. I realize it doesn't translate well in posting forums. However, since my second paragraph discounted the first I figure that was evident.

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.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[Golias]

No, I don't want revenge. I want people who intend to harm society removed from it. Simple as that. Lock murderers away, and don't let them out anytime soon.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[Pentagram]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but here's something to think about: if you had been granted the same genome as this hypothetical individual in the genetic lottery and were brought up in the same society, your actions would have been the same.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[sabinm]

No, Jails are expensive.

Lets do the math.
Take 500 children. Board them in an exlusive school with good meals, great education and sufficent social skills. Have their parents pay for half (7500) a semester and let the government pay for the other half. Ten years later, we have CEO's Senior Programmers, Writers, Athletes, Teachers, etc. These folk pay taxes, contribute to their community and even may employ other people with less abilty. Net loss to society? Zero. That's a net gain. Boarding schools, macroeconomically are cheap.

Lets take a prison

Take 500 inmates. Lock them in a cell. Deprive them of life liberty and property. Force them to use your property and enforce living standards by violence and intimidation. Don't do anything about crime once you're in prison except more violence and intimidation. Say the state pays (conserviatvely) 11000 a year to house one inmate, guard him, feed him, provide with medical, dental care, clothes and occupational therapy. Once they get out, they are more violent than ever, or haven't been able to adjust to a demanding society. Some kill and rape for pleasure, others to get themselves back "home" in the prison. Net loss to society? You do the math.

Criminals aren't the only prisoners in prison. The warden is a prisoner. The warden may see the hole the prison is falling into, but is imprisioned by a vengeful constituent. The guards are imprisoned because the either: one must be very careful not to abuse those who abuse them, or two: become monsters themselves. A prision is a vehicle for hate. I fear for anyone who has to take care of prisoners.

Several things that will make prisons machines for change and reduce the net cost.

1. A thoughtful due process. There is no need to hastily decide how to incarcerate or put to death an accused convict. If the case is done right the first time, there is less room to appeal. This would have a two-fold consequence: Less innocent people would become anti-establishment monsters and more convictions for truly guilty folk would stick, including the heinous death penalty. That means an honest jury, an excellent defense, and an honest and FAIR judge. That means not reducing the sentence because of color, creed, sex or race. You do the crime you do the time. That also means knowing when to extend mercy to the convicted, when the sentence should fit the crime. Mandatory sentencing: not good. I could go on. Jury accountability. Judge accountability. Lawyer accountability. Prosecution accountability. Police accountability.

2. Society has to learn that hating prisoners is a useless proposition and an endless cycle. You hate convicts. You won't hire convicts. Convicts can't get jobs. Convicts commit crime to either A: make money B: get back into jail where they were assured three squares. The consequence is that you went to jail. After that, you've paid your debt to society. You need another chance.

3. Prions have to learn that they are not there to punish offenders. The punishment is loss of life liberty and property by due process. THe prisons are there to ensure that the liberty is lost. That means loss. That means no liberty. That means no external means of happiness. To take away a person's liberty, especially an american's liberty is tantamount to taking that person's life. That's how much we should value a person's liberty.

4. Once we get out of the way of acting as third party judges and executioners and handing proper sentences out, (mind you, I'm not lobbying for light sentences: I'm for the death penalty if it can be carried out justly and the burden of proof is on the state to prove that the person must die and appeals don't get exhausted because it would be inconvenient or expensive for the judicial/justice system) People can actually get out of jail feeling that they truly can have a fresh start. Once they beleive that, they'll do their best to prepare for the outside world. Say 25 percent of the people in pris

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[nullgel]

Let them do whatever they feel like! Gosh!

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[damiam]

Take 500 children. Board them in an exlusive school with good meals, great education and sufficent social skills. Have their parents pay for half (7500) a semester and let the government pay for the other half. Ten years later, we have CEO's Senior Programmers, Writers, Athletes, Teachers, etc. These folk pay taxes, contribute to their community and even may employ other people with less abilty. Net loss to society? Zero. That's a net gain. Boarding schools, macroeconomically are cheap.

Those "exclusive" schools can keep popping out CEOs because they're exclusive - they only admit bright, motivated students. You're not gonna get those results with prisoners, and very few good teachers are interested in teaching them.

As for money, at the $15000/semester rate you've mentioned, that's about $40000 a year. Now factor in security, and you're paying a nice chunk of change.

Don't get me wrong, I generally agree with you, but what you advocate is never going to happen.

Re:Give Inmates Skills

[SupremeTaco]

I think that's the problem, they've done a little too much of what they felt like.

My 0.02.

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

Re:Political motivation?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

but would the author have included this statement had he been a Democrat?

Yes. The news services almost always mention the political party when they talk about a politician. I don't know why, but I see it all the time.

Re:Political motivation?

[michael path]

It's commonplace for AP articles to distinguish political affiliation for anyone in elected office when referring to him or her.

The exceptions usually being President and VP.

So, no, there's no backhanded motivation in including this in the AP article. Whether or not it should be including the /. summary is a valid concern though.

Re:Political motivation?

[(trb001)]

I'm not too worried about the Slashdot summary, it was taken directly from the story. While you say it's commonplace for the AP articles to distinguish party affiliation, note how often they do it for Republicans and not Democrats...it might surprise you.

--trb

Re:Political motivation?

[hambonewilkins]

Dear Lord, are you saying there's a bias in whether or not a person is labelled with his or her political party in the Associated Press?

You might want to get your tin-foil hat resized at a local haberdashery.

Re:Political motivation?

[snwcrash]

Got any examples of this? I looked on the AP site at 3 political articles and all mentioned party affiliation with regards to elected officals.
Appointees might be another matter since they wouldn't need to declare their party on the ballot.

In most news articles refering to politians it would be very rare not to see the party mentioned (like D-NY or R-WI).

Re:Political motivation?

[squiggleslash]

note how often they do it for Republicans and not Democrats

1. As far as I can see, it's about equal on a ratio basis.

2. What do you care? This isn't a negative story. If every time the AP reported on sex scandals they mentioned the affiliation of those connected with party A but never those with B, then that'd be one thing. But this story is nothing like that.

3. Why shouldn't they report it? Information about elected government officers is usually incomplete without their affiliation. IF someone says "The governor of West Dakota said today...", then most of us will wonder who the hell that governor is and something that says something about them. (We'll then ask where the hell West Dakota is.)

Re:Political motivation?

[dbc001]

Party affiliation is always relevant. It should be mentioned in every article that mentions a politician. It's a great way for everyone to learn how the political parties differ in real life as opposed to how they differ in advertising and marketing.

Re:Political motivation?

[bruthasj]

What's wrong with being labeled a Republican? Contrary to popular belief in some circles, it's not a demeaning label. Republicanism espouses personal responsibility, even though many of its members do not entirely live up to the claim. Taking away video games from those that have committed crimes (criminals have indeed taken rights away from other people) and allowing more constructive activities is what a Republican should push for and encourage.

Re:Political motivation?

[slavemowgli]

1. Yes, it was necessary.
2. Yes, the author (most likely) would've done so. (Not that I can speak for the author, of course, but if he has any amount of journalistic common sense, then the answer is yes).
3. You're wrong. Of course there is a political side to this story - outside of the bleedingly obvious fact that every official decision made by a politician has a political side (that's what it's ABOUT, for goodness' sake), the question how inmates should be treated, what rights they should have, and whether they should still be viewed as human beings with dignity is very much a political one. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if this is not a political question, then what is?

You may be unhappy with the fact that one of your republican heroes is portrayed in a light that might be perceived as less than 100% positive and uncritical, but if you think about it for a second, you'll notice that the reporter is just doing his job - reporting. He's not responsible for the guy's actions, so why should he be making excuses for them or deliberately leaving out facts?

Future EA Employees?

[michael path]

From TFA:

In prison, inmates should "pick up skills and abilities that will allow them to go back out into society and be productive citizens," Blunt said. "Playing video games doesn't have anything to do with either of those objectives."

Are you kidding? Confined to constricted areas for entire years. Limited interpersonal action creating a sociopath. Far, far too much free time on their hands. Die hard video game players. Always ready to take it up the butt.

This is where Electronic Arts needs to recruit new talent.

Re:Future EA Employees?

[Saige]

Ah, yes, the completely irrelevant and unnecessary Microsoft bash. I think that's required to be a Slashdot user, isn't it?

Considering Microsoft has very few cube farms (support is the only place I know of that has them), it's also more or less completely incorrect. But don't let that stop you.

Hardly a punishment.

[Japong]

They shouldn't have their games banned, they should just get specially made versions of the games already out there.

Is there really anything more punitive than waiting in line for World of Warcraft? Having a queue system that's been modified so that you'll join the server... in 10-20 years? After which you'll time out and have to rejoing WoW 2. Give them all 28.8 modems to play CS:Source with. Ball mice. Nokia N-gages (the side-talkin' versions). The entire Deer Hunter collection.

Those suckers will crack within days!

Re:Hardly a punishment.

[nekoniku]

I've got one better than that: Hello Kitty Cutie World.

Re:Hardly a punishment.

[vjmurphy]

"Give them all 28.8 modems to play CS:Source with. Ball mice."

Ow, those poor mice.

Re:Hardly a punishment.

[jlapier]

And then when they get sent to "the hole" they have to play ET on an original 2600. (maybe, if they can actually get ET out of one of those in-game holes, they can come out of "the hole"....)

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....

Re:Politics has everything to do with the story

[(trb001)]

Let me clarify my complaint...this story has nothing to do with party affiliation, unless the AP is trying to draw your attention to the fact a Republican is removing violent video games from an institution, which would be my contention.

--trb

Re:Politics has everything to do with the story

[flibuste]

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" ?

Would that be because people here read the fucking article AFTER they comment on it?

Re:Politics has everything to do with the story

[Qrlx]

Here's my take:

Republicans tend to take the view that prisoners need to be punished.

Democrats tend to take the view that prisoners can be rehabilitated.

This dichotomy exists outisde prison as well. For instance, look at how the Republicans "reformed" welfare, and look at how the Democrats built it in the first place.

What a travesty....

[keiferb]

They presumably did something quite naughty, so they're now being punished. When I was little, my mom would take away my Atari 2600 if I was bad. What do you want to bet that some of these people didn't even -have- video games until they got to prison?

Bleh.

Re:What a travesty....

[damian cosmas]

They may not have had video games, but they probably didn't have free meals, health insurance, or gang-rapes in the shower, either.

Re:What a travesty....

[EnderWigginsXenocide]

So, let's see, GOOD: Free Meals Free Health Insurance (that's better than mine, you wouldn't belive the co-pay on a major surgery, yet a million buck heart transplant is 100% covered for a prisioner sitting on death row...wish I had a link handy) Free Housing Free Videogames Free Sex (Assuming you're down with the gang rape.) Downside: Gets borring being in the same place all the time (hmmm.. anyone else work an office job like me?) GangRape

Good

[Dragoon412]

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.

Yes, because pushing a button on a gamepad trains you to handle a real gun more effectively, right? Especially since games offer such realistic bullet physics, right?

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.'"

I don't see this as bad at all. They're in prison for a reason. Why should the tax payers be footing the bill for this?

Re:Good

[M3wThr33]

I'd rather an inmate being playing a game that raping other ones. It's just something to keep them busy that doesn't involve sex or weightlifting.

Re:Good

[alienw]

I don't see this as bad at all. They're in prison for a reason. Why should the tax payers be footing the bill for this?

RTFA. The inmates paid for the system and the games (it was bought on profits from the prison commissary).

Re:Good

[Alarash]

I agree. Saying video games, even the most realistic ones, improve your skill in driving/climbing/shooting/whatever is just plain stupid. Maybe they can teach you things (like how to set a rifle scope), but these informations can be found _anywhere_.

However, I do find the idea of inmates playing video games is pretty contradictory.

Re:Good

[The Faywood Assassin]

Playing video games is fun. Prison shouldn't be fun. I'm not saying it must be inhumanly torturous, but smiling, happy prisoners don't convince me that they are learning the consequences of their actions.

There are many honest and hard working families that can't afford video games, but criminals are rewarded with such luxuries. That to me is unacceptable

Perhaps the criminals should be learning skills that will help keep them out of prison

Beny

Re:Good

[RedWolves2]

Any profits should go back to the taxpayers and not to the inmates who have no rights.

Re:Good

[alienw]

Any profits should go back to the taxpayers

If people like you weren't so stupid, they would probably realize that if the inmates can't play video games or watch TV they will spend their time starting gang fights, riots, and so on. This situation would require hiring many more guards and building bigger and more secure prisons. Guards and prisons are a hell of a lot more expensive than Xboxes, and their cost comes out of my pockets. If anything, providing video games to inmates is an example of good fiscal policy.

and not to the inmates who have no rights.

I want to hear you sing this tune if you ever end up behind bars (statistically, it's quite likely). There are quite a few innocent people in jail, too. Keep this in mind next time you say something dumb like this.

Re:Good

[Ash-Fox]

This is why in America they call them "prisons" and not "rehabilitation centers".

Because it's meant to punish people, not help them not do it again.

Re:Good

[RedWolves2]

Wow you make it sound like you go to jail because your unlucky...no you go to jail for making bad descisions in life. Those bad descisions should not give you the right to sit around playing video games and freeloading off society. They should be made to work and work hard to rehabilitate themselves. Not play video games. They shouldn't be allowed to watch TV in my opinion.

The jails worked before TV and video games and it can work now without it.

Re:Good

[alienw]

You really need to improve your reading comprehension skills. I made the following points:

- Things like TV and videogames are means of control. With such enormous inmate populations, US prisons would be hard-pressed to do without them.
- Due to flaws in the US legal system, a significant percentage of inmates in US prisons should have never been sent there.

Do you disagree with my first point or my second point?

Re:Good

[NonSequor]

Inmates have rights. They just don't have the full set of rights that others have. Exactly what rights they have would be a much bigger debate.

That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that criminals have yielded their right to choose how and where they live. As such, aside from cruel and unusual punishment being forbidden, the state is free to dictate their living conditions. I don't think that disallowing video games, regardless of how they were paid for, is cruel or unusual.

Re:Good

[Wyatt Earp]

I call BS.

Video Games and TV don't stop crime in Prisons or Jails. Tight security stops crime in Prisons or Jails.

I've been in Jail, couple times actually. We didn't have video games or TV and there were no shankings or rape parties in the shower because of it being gone.

When I went to jail, it was because I was being a fuckin' dumbass and the other folks in jail with me had been fuckin' dumbasses. In fact, of my closer circle of friends from High School, we'll say 4/5th of them went to Jail, and every time and everyone was doing something dumb.

I know alot of folks who have been in jail, and none of them were innocent.

Re:Good

[RedWolves2]

My reading comprehension skills are fine perhaps yours are rusty..I thought I made myself clear but perhaps not...

I disagree with your first point. And the second point is irrelavant.

Prisons were under control before TV and Videogames came around don't see why they would need them now. You can "control" them by putting them to work.

If you were sent to prison you were sent by your peers sucks to be you should of gotten a better lawyer. *knock on wood I'll never need one*

Re:Good

[alienw]

The US prison population is growing very quickly. It is now several times what it was 20 years ago. New prisons are not being built at the same rate. Obviously, you run into very different issues than you would have had 50 years ago.

As for a better lawyers: you can't always afford one. As far as "peers": a senile grumpy racist jury isn't composed of people I would consider peers, and that's the one you will most likely end up with. Anyway, do some digging sometimes, you will uncover lots of interesting stuff.

Re:Good

[slavemowgli]

Simple: Because it's the "taxpayer" (that is, the general public) that put them into prison. You might just as well ask why the taxpayers have to pay for prison construction costs, for the inmates' food, and so on. That being said, yes, they are in prison for a reason, and that reason is to make sure that they ultimately will give up on crime and become productive members of society again, coupled with (in the more extreme cases) protecting the general public from dangerous people like serial killers and the like. And yes, of course, there is an element of punishment, too, but it's not about *revenge*, which is a fundamentally different thing. Think about it.

Re:Good

[Ced_Ex]

What do you mean you'd rather play games than have sex??? That's insane!

Huh?! You mean it's a men's prison? Oooooh... eeeeeew!

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...

Re:Learning is expensive

[Ayaress]

Did I mention I live in Saginaw? The prison out by the airport has a lower rate of violence than the schools. When I was in 8th grade, Heritage High School was closed for two weeks due to riot damage.

Re:Learning is expensive

[arose]

Literiture? Screw it [..]

You should be hired as an editor for Slashdot.

Re:Learning is expensive

[jpmoney]

To get the books you could also write a letter to the state legislature every day for a few years. I hear that apparently Maine will give up after only a few years.

Sorry, I had to go for the Shawshank...

Re:Learning is expensive

[Short Circuit]

Have you looked at textbooks recently? They're stuffed with photos licensed from third parties. And with every copy of the book sold goes a royalty to the owner of the photo.

My Political Science 110 textbook costs more than $90, and it's got more page surface covered with photos than with text.

Re:Learning is expensive

[miu]

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.

The only problem I have with that is that the book sale method would not allow standardized curricula. It's possible that locally printed digital textbooks could be used to save money and get fairly up to date and standardized material.

Overall I think you are dead on. Learning is expensive for reasons that don't need to apply to a prison school.

Re:Learning is expensive

[bluGill]

So? I just want them to know how to think and work a good job. Standardize curricula has only one advantage: you can give standard tests and then compare results. So long as the books are not wrong, I don't care. I'm not going to be looking at their grades. In the real world the only ones who hire them will be watching closely to see results, so grades won't matter much to them either.

Re:Learning is expensive

[miu]

The reason that standardized curricula are important is because such a system is likely to have high staff turnover. If the material is standardized then turnover will not cause as much disruption.

Re:Learning is expensive

[sharkey]

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).

Count your blessings. At least you didn't have to use books with that stupid Base-6 crap in them!

Re:Learning is expensive

[MBraynard]

This may be the least expensive item to include given Project Guttenburg.

Re:Learning is expensive

[Wyatt Earp]

Salary is 22K, but insurance and benefits are usually 100-150% of that.

Admin for schools is 60-120K a head, with insurance and benefitis at 120-160% of salary.

Re:Learning is expensive

[Changa_MC]

benefits are about 30% of salary for teachers like me. Where do you live?

I'm about the cheapest part of my classroom setup

Re:Learning is expensive

[Wyatt Earp]

It's benefits and insurance and all sorts of things. I got my numbers from budget meetings in some K-12s I worked IT in from 1997-2003.

Your average budget for a K-12 is about 87% to HR, saleries, insurance, etc.

Health insurance, as a benefit, was a huge chunk.

Re:Learning is expensive

[bob65]

If you're aiming to give them a high-school level education anyways, what's the point of textbooks? I never used a textbook in highschool (nor did we ever get any, except for novels in English). In case some of you are too old to know, high-school curriculums are largely made up by the school district nowadays anyways. The teachers come up with their own lesson plans, and write up their own homework assignments (they claim that the textbook problems are "too easy"). The notes taken in class (which are usually well-organized, and read almost like a textbook, with consistently numbered sections, theorems, and examples) are basically what serve as study material. Going to class and listening attentively is what basically serves as "reading the textbook".

Re:Learning is expensive

[miu]

Is that usual now? I had textbooks 1-12 and thought that was still the standard practice. I'd be interested to know if that is a result of new ideas in how people learn or a simple cost cutting measure.

Re:Learning is expensive

[damiam]

Don't generalize for all high schools. AP classes have a set curriculum, and a lot of common courses are standardized at the state level. I had textbooks in most of my high school classes, and used them quite a bit.

Re:Learning is expensive

[bob65]

Well as far as I could tell, my AP classes had a set curriculum as well, but we still didn't get textbooks for any of the AP courses. Calculus, for example, was taught entirely from overhead/board notes.

Re:Learning is expensive

[shpoffo]

(Science classes are most expensive, math and literiture following close behind due to calculators and additional books).

Perhaps they should have spent a little more on "literiture" (and the Arts!)

.
-shpoffo

Re:Learning is expensive

[Wybaar]

Why would it be hard to find teachers to educate the inmates? Use online or video teaching courses, and tie other privileges to completion of those courses. Those who want to learn will learn and get other perks, and those who don't won't learn and won't get those perks. If an inmate hears about others who are getting good grades on tests and are therefore getting more time outside, for instance, won't that inmate think about trying out these classes so that he or she can get outside more often?

Similarly, if an inmate destroys the learning materials or in other ways prevents others from making use of the opportunities, punish them by removing some of the privileges they have received.

Once they have the basics down, give them specialized training in an area that is likely to give them something to do when they are released. Unfortunately, the law would need to be changed to allow this -- see this article from the Congressional Record published in 1996.

Re:Learning is expensive

[Tassach]

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

One way is to bring back teaching scholarships.

My father was able to go to college because of a scholarship like this. In exchange for a paid-for college education, he agreed to teach in whatever school the board of education told him to work in for a certian number of years. 22K isn't a great salary; but if you don't have any college debt, you can live on it for a few years. A deal like that is no worse than taking a ROTC scholarship and getting shipped out to Iraq as a butterbar @ $28K/yr.

Sour grapes.

[Xaroth]

Really, Blunt just kept getting his ass handed to him in Counterstrike by the inmates.

Re:Sour grapes.

[drinkypoo]

One does wonder about the value of using a map of your prison as a training tool. Are blueprints of prisons available? On the outside, that is?

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

[sw33tjimmy]

uh,
how many convicts do you know?

Re:Rehabilitataion vs. Punishment

[freqres]

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

When has the U.S. prison system ever been about rehabilitation, if by rehabilitation you mean the teaching of social, life and vocational skills? There have been a few experiments with that form rehabilitation (especially in the late 1800's), but ever since the concept of a prision started in Philadelphia in 1790, the idea was punishment, repenting and penitence (where the word penitentiary comes from). Usually this broke down into solitary confinement or free contract labor. If you add in the concept of control because of the ever increasing ratio of prisoners to guards, you have the U.S. prison system of today. While most Liberals poke fun about 'Jesusland' and such, the U.S. still holds on to a lot of its Christian puritan roots.

Check out Prison Reform for a good look at the history of prisons.

Re:Rehabilitataion vs. Punishment

[Elwood P Dowd]

Heck, why not just turn all 5+ year prison terms into life sentences?

Or amend our constitution so we can just torture and kill them without appeal. Why bugger around?

Re:Rehabilitataion vs. Punishment

[borg1238]

Whatever happened to rehabilitation?

You're right. We really need to teach murderers better "people skills."

Re:Rehabilitataion vs. Punishment

[SuiteSisterMary]

As an add-on:

"Justice" has always been about punishment; be it either retributive (you hurt me, so I hurt you back) or preventative (if I hurt you, you might not hurt me any more.)

Punishments were generally of the easy-to-administer type; floggings, public shaming, banishment, confiscation of property, or execution.

One day, England decides to ship the buggers off to Austrailia and the like. Needed somewhere to hold them while the boats were in transit, so they built jails. Then some clever bugger thinks 'why not just leave them in jail?' And the penal system was born.

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:Rehabilitataion vs. Punishment

[I8TheWorm]

Actually, we've only been a rehabilitation interested country for a short while. Rehabilitation, that is, in the sense of rebuilding the person and the belief values. James Johnston (San Quentin, Folsom, Alcatraz Warden) became noted because he didn't believe in chain gangs. Rather, he implemented work duty where prisoners were rewarded for their efforts. He began in 1913, but didn't gain real noteriety until 1933, when Alcatraz opened.

Before prisons (outside of the US.. our first prison was built in 1790), there were stocks/pillories (which we did have at one time), popular torture devices, and brutal treatment. Someone who lived before the 1900's would be amazed at the treatment of prisoners today.

Re:Rehabilitataion vs. Punishment

[91degrees]

For every one that can successully integrate back into society as a productive member, 99 will go back on a crime spree when they get out

Actually, the statisitics put that 99 figure a little closer to 2.

Re:Rehabilitataion vs. Punishment

[scaryjohn]

If you think rehabilitation is a novel development, incarceration itself is. Felonies are today defined as crimes that'll fetch more than one year in prison. It used to be that felonies warranted execution. That was it: misdemeanors and hangin' offenses.

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...

Re:Gaming is not a right

[Ayaress]

I don't think it was ever intended to rehabilitate them. It was meant to keep them occupied. Sort of like how you give your dog toys so he doesn't chew your leg.

Re:Gaming is not a right

[poetofnumbers]

Yes, prisoners would be better served spending bettering themselves. I also agree that playing video games is not a right. However, taking a privilege away from inmates can be like taking a bone away from an anti-social dog: you take care you don't get your hand bitten. In the same vein, my heart goes out to the COs in Missouri. This decision might make things more tense for a month or so.

Wonder if video games will go underground like drugs.

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.

I agree

[Dark Paladin]

I've hoped that someday we reform our "correctional institutions" (which are anything but) more like this:

(Note: first and second felonies assume proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, ect, ect, ect.)

First felony offense:

5 years mandatory sentence
Job, skills, and educational training to prepare for the work force
Therapy (daily faded to weekly by the end of the sentence) to deal with issues and overcome whatever may have inspired the crime
Upon release, set up with a place to live, a job at a true "living wage" in a new town far from where any "original corruptive influences may reside" (ie: "The gang made me do it!" excuse will not work, since you will be removed from the gang/hood/whatever)
Checkups once a month for the next 5 years.

Mandatory for all felonies, "white collar", or otherwise. You rip of your stockholders, you get the same 5 years as a murderer.

2nd Felony Offense:

You are executed after being found guilty. There is no sentence plea, only "guilty or not guilty" appeals, and once those are exhausted, you are executed. If after 5 years of training, therapy, new job, practically new life, plus 5 years of checkups to get you help if you need it, you have proven you either can not or will not be taught.

For this system to work, however, we would need a better infrastructure of taking care of the homeless, the sick, the poor, hungry, orphans, and so on. If we fixed up these problems, we could implement a "get touch" prison policy the way conservatives dream of because the excuses of society would no apply.

Based on the last requirements, I predict this system will be in place by the year two thousand never.

Re:I agree

[Ash-Fox]

Don't expect such things to change in a country that practices capital punishment, while also making it illegal to commit suicide (Although, I find this concept rather humorous as in what can they do? Sentence the guy/girl to death?).

I'm amused by the fact *alot* people think America is more humane when they're one of the few countries that additionaly practice capital punishment on underaged individuals.

Although apparently now, it's changed so that one underaged can be sentenced to capital punishment, however will not be murdered (Murder is still murder for me, no matter what excuse people come up with.) untill they're of "age".

Re:I agree

[Ash-Fox]

> That's all? How easy! Now, since you proposed already one very simple system noone before ever thought about, what are you going to do about above little problem?

Just copy Sweden's methods of dealing with it (This is not a joke).

Re:I agree

[orangesquid]

Only changes I would make are maybe splitting the first phase of this into 3-year and 15-year parts (first and second strikes), then the third strike would put someone for literal life into a facility that provided food, water, toilets, security, limitied postal/phone/email service, plenty of reading material, and plenty of pencil and paper, so that, even if some deranged genius kills a bunch of people, his brainpower doesn't go to waste...

Re:I agree

[bluGill]

Suicide is only attempted by those who are mentally ill. It is not illegal because normal people do it, they never do. It is illegal because it allows the courts to force someone that ill into hospitals where they can get help after attempting it. Most attempts go on to become productive people after the incident.

Suicide also affects others. Those who attempt it fail to realize how much it hurts others who love them.

Re:I agree

[Ash-Fox]

The definition of being "mentally ill" includes being harmful to others or to one's self. Hence your statement isn't very strong to me.

Re:I agree

[squiggleslash]

Suicide is only attempted by those who are mentally ill.

No, people who come up with simplistic explanations for behaviours they don't understand are mentally ill.

People commit suicide for a variety of reasons. Most often, that life simply isn't appealing any more. The fact we don't like it when people do it doesn't make it an illogical decision.

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.

Re:I agree

[Golias]

Suicide is only attempted by those who are mentally ill.

I'm not convinced that this is true, but anybody who strongly feels otherwise is probably not in a good position to debate their case before us.

Re:I agree

[ClioCJS]

You, sir, are an affront to freedom and democracy. You belong sucking on Bin Laden's left nutsack. You are a bigger enemy to democracy than any insurgent in Iraq. I suggest going to www.famm.org.

Re:I agree

[Ash-Fox]

I hate it when people reply with jokes when I'm being serious.

Re:I agree

[Christopheles]

Maybe this is one of those sarcastic posts but: Having punishments be disproportionate to the crime doesn`t really help anyone, but more importantly, it doesn`t really make a whole lot of sense to use execution in a system of such fallibility. I`m not putting some infinite value on human life, but if we assume that there is a finite value given to it by the general society, and that value is high, then only a near-perfect judgement system could really use the execution system, because otherwise, the cost outweighs the benefit.

Re:I agree

[Grym]

Think Abu Ghirab?

Oh come on! Let's be honest, what happened at Abu Ghirab, while deplorable, wasn't much worse than what happens during fraternity hazing on campuses all across the US.

It's amazing when panties placed on a muslim's head are equated to terminal illnesses. I guess hyperbole knows no bounds when practicing the new form of /. karma-whoring; that is, incoherently spewing anti-Bush buzzwords and platitudes.

-Grym

Re:I agree

[hunterx11]

Most people who attempt to commit suicide don't really want to die. But there are some who do, and it's their right to kill themselves.

Re:I agree

[dynamo]

Fraternity hazing is voluntary. Those hazed are sometimes humiliated, but they are still probably pretty sure that they were, say, killed, that those responsible would be punished.

Another good point is that hazing is a temporary thing.

Re:I agree

[lachlan76]

You do realise that things like copyright infringement are a felony right? You would kill someone for sharing music???

Re:I agree

[dynamo]

I meant "IF they were, say, killed"

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:Monkey ball

[Phixxr]

Wow.. how pissed was she when she got it back to the store and they would only exchange it for a copy of the same game? :) _Phixxr

Re:Prisoners should have basic human rights too.

[Holi]

and that they're still going to spend this on "negative items" like cigarettes

Most of the time the negative items are bought not with their pathetic wages but with the money given to them by friends and relatives. As for these negative items certain states are denying them access to them, Cigarettes are no longer allowed at the ACI in Rhode Island. I am not saying that some inmates can't get them but the population in general cannot.

Recipe for disaster

[flibuste]

When ignorance of sociology, human nature, gaming and their benefits added together meet with the idiocy of bureaucracy, you get a prison in a USA state.

Death penalty is probably more efficient to fight crime and violence than plonking an inmate for 8h in front of Mario Bros. I wonder if it's also less expensive than running a few computers in a room.

Re:Recipe for disaster

[evilmousse]

we could force them to play Big Rigs for 8 hours at a time, that's punishment.

put a DDR machine in every cell with it's volume turned wayyyy up and no way to shut it off...

no playing pimpwars...

Re:Prisoners should have basic human rights too.

[alan_dershowitz]

While I agree in principle, studies have found for example that access to cable television has reduced prison riots. There are practical reasons to give prisoners some amenities. Some people are never going to pick up a book or take a vocational class no matter how bored they are.

On the other hand, I don't think they need violent video games for the same purpose. Usually on Slashdot when talking about banning violent video games there is a freakout and everyone points out that if someone shoots a bunch of people because of a game, they were already messed up. Well, violent offenders in prison have already demonstrated a propensity for violence, so depriving _them_ of these games only makes sense.

Bravo.

[slasher999]

I consider video games, most television, gym equipment, and other "stuff" found in today's prisons to be luxuries. We should be spending our tax money on books, teachers, and other resources that give prisonors a chance at a better life. Should they choose not to take advantage of it, their failure is through no fault but their own.

Re:Bravo.

[slavemowgli]

In the case of TVs at least, one might argue that these are actually meant to educate and provide information - just like, say, newspapers.

Of course, that purppose is kinda defeated when someone just watches talk shows and crappy shows 10 hours a day, but I doubt that that's even remotely possible in your average (US-american) prison.

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.

what about personal growth games

[Parsec]

Theoretically, such as Wild Divine. Learning self knowledge and control could be an enormous benefit.

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.

Hmmm. If they make games in prison illeagel

[bruciferofbrm]

Then only crimanls will have games. umm.. no.. wait.. dang.. catch 22...

Re:Not quite right

[b-baggins]

but we can always release someone sentenced to life with no parole.

I'm the families of the victims of Ted Bundy would agree with you.

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

[b-baggins]

Perhaps because the government doesn't determine guilt, but rather a jury of fellow citizens.

Re:Not quite right

[dynamo]

If we're going to kill people for sex crimes, we need to make sure that there are no more sex 'crimes' where everyone involved except the law is happy with the results. I am not talking about statutory rape here, though for cases where the age difference is 3 years that should not be a legal issue either.

I'm talking about stuff like it still being against the law in some states to use or possess sex toys.

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:Not quite right

[Golias]

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.

The death penalty does not always dissuade psycho-killers from killing, but when used effectively, it's an extremely certain way to make sure they don't kill again.

Re:Not quite right

[Phisbut]

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.

GP posted : If you are convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt

"Beyond the shadow of a doubt" can make it highly restrictive, but if security cameras see you take out your gun and shoot someone, with a high-enough resolution that we can recognize your face, and the cops got there 5 seconds later, see you on the scene of the crime, with a smoking gun... all that on the surveillance tape... Now tell me... how is it even remotely possible that you might not be guilty?

What a crock

[nurb432]

They shoudnt have had the games in the first place. Its a damned prison!

They should be doing time, not playing games, watching tv, or whatever on MY dime. Its bad enough that we have to feed and house them.

They convicted felons, not some homeless guy that cant find a job.

If they want 'nice things' that some people cant even afford, then they can stay out of prison. Its their CHOICE to be in there.

Re:Not quite right

[Golias]

You just outlined the reason why the Libertarian Party exists. People become Libertarians (or, at the least, small-l libertarian conservatives) when they make up their mind that the government can barely manage to deliver our mail, and should not really be in charge of anything more than they absolutely must.

The problem is that most of people tend to agree that serial killers and habitual rapists should probably be put down, and while the government is not a very good engine for getting it done, it is preferable in almost every way to lynch mobs.

I'm generally anti-death penalty, but I consider it an issue upon which reasonable people can disagree.

Re:Give Inmates Skills / Alternatives

[dynamo]

I have an alternative: smoke it with them.

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:In case the morons haven't noticed...

[Anonymous Coward]

"...the highest incarceration rate of any nation in the country..."

Yup. That's why I read this place; for the comedy.

Re:In case the morons haven't noticed...

[AzraelKans]

Exactly! (read parent) I mean why do they want a console? if they can play Quake, Halo, Counterstrike and Mercenaries for real! (all they have to do is to set a huge riot!) the only catch is they only have a life and no respawns!

Just in case you were wondering , the theory about getting good at aiming with games is bullshit, I have tried it and my real aiming has actually gotten worse. (Im getting good at sniping in halo though)

Dont worry some day (maybe when a new medium emerges or it gets more streamlined) people will realize how stupid violent game laws are.

p.s. I was going to mention they could be playing "the suffering" as well. but that would require way too many human sacrifices and dark rituals. probably the major wouldnt aprove the budget.

Re:In case the morons haven't noticed...

[ClioCJS]

Your post holds zero value whatsoever.

Why would I spoon feed this idiot his information, when he already told me I have zero credibility? He wont believe me, even though it's true. This has ZERO to do with how any professor teaches his course; that metaphor is laughable.

Why would I waste my time telling him something he doesn't believe when I already know it to be true? He's not worth it. I told him to verify the information independetly...... Using the most common tools to do so: Google, and Wikipedia. Somehow this is laudable and a subject of attack? On *slashdot*, I can be attacked for suggesting to use google to find something out?!? Did I wander into a parellel fucking universe? Should I be checking myself in the mirror for a goatee? What rod crawled up the ass of the rod in your ass?

Finally, you imply that anyone who doesn't love America should leave to go to Cuba. Total knee-jerk response there. So what, anyone who complains about America doesn't belong here? I guess, any voices of dissent should be quelled. There's a word for that: China. And another (well, 2 words actually): Saudi Arabia.

You, sir, belong in America less than I, becuase you do not even think people with different opinions should stay in the country. That sentiment is far more unamerican and dangerous to democracy than anything that *I* have said. So maybe YOU should move to somewhere where everyone is forced to love it or leave: Saudi Arabia, Iran, China. It's where your type belongs.

Re:In case the morons haven't noticed...

[slavemowgli]

I wish I had points to mod you up. :)

Re:In case the morons haven't noticed...

[ClioCJS]

Thank you, O Sane One.

Re:In case the morons haven't noticed...

[feyhunde]

Not to say that some of sentencing has gone over board, like how screwed up drug and copyright laws are, but longer is better for many career criminals. Look at Britain, it's gone in the soup in recent years because the teeth have been pulled from the police and prison system, crime is rampant, and the hot burglary rate is astounding. The political fixes have all been about social training for criminals, or fixing the root causes. At the same time New York City went draconian and had a huge decrease in crime.

Now sending some one to prison for five years for stealing a mailbox is stupid, if they did it because they were trying to steal check and/or do Identity theft, it isn't. More leeway towards judges is one answer (besides changing drug laws of course).

As for video games and cable TV, it should be used a privilege to dangle in front of prisoners, a positive reinforcement beyond the negative (which don't work well for lifers). Frankly, if it can be used efficiently, and used to better the system, this should be a matter for Bureau of Prisons and not the state senate.

Re:In case the morons haven't noticed...

[ClioCJS]

In America, the average murderer serves 6 years.

The average rapist serves 4 years.

The average drug user serves 10.

Which do we have most of? Drugs, murder, or rape? I'd say drugs. Looks like the long sentences aren't having the deterrent effect you speak of, at least not for drugs. What you say is probably more true for violent crime. But of course, over 50% of prisoners are nonviolent drug users. What a fucked up country we live in.

Money

[MrWa]

One thing that most people are missing is that he banned all games because he did not want to spend the money necessary to determine what games are too violent or inappropiate.

Re:Give Inmates Skills / Alternatives

[Golias]

Interesting concept. Total de-criminalization of marijuana, but only on the condition that you don't bogart your stash.

Sounds a bit utopian, but probably no worse then our current system.

SINNAR!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

See you in HELL, asshole!

Re:SINNAR!!!!

[tepples]

"See you in hell" implies that you're going to hell too. If you don't want this outcome, you can get help.

Re:Not quite right

[Profane MuthaFucka]

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people on death row. What percentage of them were convicted with this kind of evidence? What percentage of them are actually innocent? You can invent all the scenarios that you want, but the only thing that matters is the real case. We cannot completely know if every single person on death row deserves to be there.

Re:Not quite right

[Profane MuthaFucka]

PROBLEM: The government isn't an alien insectoid brain. It's human beings, just like your jury of fellow citizens. And possibly soylent green.

Re:Ok lets be sensible.

[Alcimedes]

Reading.

Books.

Rehabilitation = work

[YrWrstNtmr]

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,

Video games isn't it.
With the number of prisoners available, we should never, ever, see a pothole. Are they being used to help dig out Boston from all that snow? If not, why not?

Put em to work.

politicians meddling

[teh_dg]

Policicians meddling where they are not needed, or wanted. The argument that inmates should not be enjoying themselves playing computer games can be applied immediately with regard to other forms of entertainment and it shows how ridiculous it is.

A week with little stimulus for entertainment is a long, long time for anyone, and almost certainly not good for them. For people who spend a lot of time locked in a small room, and are only allowed to go outdoors even for excercise at specified times, thumbs get idle.

Neither, I'd wager, is it good for weaning criminals from nasty habits. Ever tried to give up smoking (read: drugs, kicking the crap out of people) with nothing engaging to keep you occupied?

Video games can make for some good, and convenient entertainment - can start and stop playing more or less exactly when you want, and its very engrossing. Sure, prisoners shouldnt be spending all day playing games, but an hour or two in the evening is an easy reward for good behavior that wardens can control comparatively easily.

One of the key skills of management is knowing when to leave responsibility and decision-making with those below you who are positioned best.

Re:Prisoners should have basic human rights too.

[over_exposed]

So, to paraphrase (loosely), you're of the opinion that regardless of the crime comitted, they should go to a resort for an indefinite amount of time and talk to shrinks and play with ponies all day - all on my dime.

Say I just got evicted form my apartment. I have no money, no food, but I have a baseball bat. If prison works like you want it to, I should just be able to club someone over the head and then spend the next 3-5 years eating well in a comfortable, safe place with lots of cool toys, a full gymnasium and maybe even an olympic sized pool - all for free. Sure, the air conditioning is a little bit cold sometimes, but that's the price I pay for clubbing someone over the head. Whoops! I almost missed the 3 o'clock jazzersize and group therapy!

As previous posters said, rehab won't work on a massive scale. I'm no shrink, but the government employes thousands of them and I'm sure that if the government thought rehab would work, they would roll something out like you describe. It's probably been tried already. Who knows, maybe they're still trying, but it's not working - at least not on a macro scale. Sure, it will work for a few prisoners or even prisoners who committed certain types of crime. But if prison is a comfortable, safe place to be, why wouldn't I - a homeless guy - want to be there living it up on your dime?

Re:What pisses me off here is

[crashfrog]

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.

I find that "getting them to not strangle the guards and escape" to be a fundamental goal of imprisonment, and anything that dulls them into a zombie stupor - video games, cable TV, hell, handjobs from the commisary - accomplishes that goal, and is therefore money well spent, in my book.

Timescales of copyright and language change

[tepples]

Given the changes in the colloquial English language since the public domain died at the end of 1922, I'm not even sure that convicts would understand the language of most works in Project Gutenberg.

Re:Timescales of copyright and language change

[MBraynard]

No, I think there is definitly enough in there for them to be able to grab onto. Much of it, yes, out of reach, but you can still get some basic good novels in there.

Besides, this is a teaching opportunity.

Statutory rape and fake IDs?

[tepples]

If you are convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt of committing a crime involving sex, like rape, molestation, etc, then you get the death penalty.

What happens when a man a day over legal age has sex with a girl a day under legal age who produced a fake ID? Is the man guilty of statutory rape, or is the girl guilty of fraud?

You are required to work in prison to repay your debts. You can't get out until the debts are repaid ... You steal $5,000,000 from your shareholders, you have to make $5,000,000 and repay them.

That's equivalent to a life sentence. Divide $5 million by $5.15 an hour, 80 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, and then what happens when the con dies or becomes permanently disabled, having paid only roughly $1 million after 40-odd years?

And if somebody is found guilty of a malum prohibitum such as possession of pot or writing a sequel to a book whose author died 69 years ago, who would receive the payment of damages?

Re:Statutory rape and fake IDs?

[Golias]

What happens when a man a day over legal age has sex with a girl a day under legal age who produced a fake ID? Is the man guilty of statutory rape, or is the girl guilty of fraud?

That would be an issue for twelve rational people like you to work out, based on available evidence. Odds are, neither would be found guilty, thanks to that "reasonable doubt" clause we all love here in America.

So ladies, if you are a day under 16 and wish to have sex with me, please lie about it. I'm sure we would not be convicted. ... oh crap... unless this post comes out in the trial.

Another perfect crime foiled!!!

Oh well, I guess this means no sex with women who look like they just might really be deceptive young teenagers. I guess I'll find something else to do with my time this weekend.

Depression

[tepples]

People commit suicide for a variety of reasons. Most often, that life simply isn't appealing any more.

If life isn't appealing anymore, that's probably called "clinical depression". What else could it be?

Have any of you actually GONE to prison?

[malkman]

I'm sure you can all invent miraculous ways to prevent crime and straighten out the nations criminals, but try walking a mile in someone else's shoes before you make these suggestions. I spent about a year traveling between prisons and spending most of my time in a prison boot-camp system, and would find it hard pressed to implement various ideas some of you speak of. While I can agree that video games are not really needed in the prison (we had none, nor individual TVs for that matter), forcing someone to spend their waking life reading is a poor option. There were enough frustration problems there already.

Prison

[nurb432]

Prison is a place to rot. ( the concept of 'rehabilitation' failed )

Lock them in a small room and toss away the key. They shouldnt ever be re-introduced into society.

Short term jail, we can have discussions about, but prison.. nah it should be for the real problems and be forever.

I could care less what they 'become'. Other then dead, as they dont cost me any more money to feed and house.

Re:Prison

[drinkypoo]

Most prisoners are not in for life without parole. It costs more to kill them than to store them for life, because of the legal process involved. Rehabilitation has never been tried in a scientific fashion and on a large enough scale to learn anything. Prisons are primarily punitive as long as you have to be in fear for your life and your butthole. Prisons are breeding grounds not only for future criminal activity but also HIV and Hepatitis. Still think the prison system is making America a better place? You'll care what they become when they get out, oh short-sighted and compassionless one. You could easily be in prison yourself, through a bizarre set of circumstances or because you were a convenient patsy, or even if you are accused of one of our cultural taboos and your lawyer isn't up to the task of protecting you.

We incarcerate the highest percentage of citizens

[ClioCJS]

of any country in the planet. Think of the loss to our economy!

Fearing these new policys...

[UltimaL337Star]

Crime goes up 2% in all other states, Other States follow untill most preferred state to commit crime in is Alaska, where you may freeze your ass off, but may still be eligible to feel the warm glow of Mario.

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

[Ohreally_factor]

I'm the families of the victims of Ted Bundy would agree with you.

If your MPD is that severe, you should get professional help immediately.

Re:Prisoners should have basic human rights too.

[Ohreally_factor]

You are a fool. It's not just about being locked up. It's about who you're locked up with. You've got a very naive idea of what prison is like.

Re:Not quite right

[drinkypoo]

You are the government
You are jurisprudence
You are the volition
You are jurisdiction
And I make a difference too

A better way to discourage crime...

[burdalane]

...is to put convicted felons to work supporting law-abiding citizens. As a reward for obeying the law, the honest folk can enjoy nice long vacations in a new kind of Club Fed, where they'll have safety, food, clothing, shelter, solitude if they want it, and freedom to learn, to play video games, or to do nothing at all.

Tough on crime

[Tina Russell]

"Blunt, a Republican who took office two weeks ago, called video games 'a luxury that inmates should not be allowed to enjoy.'" Remember kids -- shoot somebody and it's no more Tetris!

Not right...

[phensley]

I don't think it's right to take away all privleges from prisons. Yes, while they may be in there for committing crime(s), it's not right to remove all rights from them once placed behind bars.

yes, because it's such an insult

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

If he doesn't like being called a Republican, he shouldn't have joined the Republican party.

If he is ashamed of his party affiliation, there are many to choose from.

Re:Not quite right

[Phisbut]

You can invent all the scenarios that you want, but the only thing that matters is the real case. We cannot completely know if every single person on death row deserves to be there.

It is true that there might be a possibility that a mistake was made, and someone was wrongfully accused of something. But what about recidivists? Can you be so unlucky that 5 different juries wrongfully find you guilty of 5 different crimes you didn't commit? How many "second chances" should a criminal have?

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?

Re:Prisoners should have basic human rights too.

[justins]

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?

Short answer: if it reduces recidivism, those "certain things" are probably things prisoners should have access to. That obviously doesn't much apply to video games or TV talk shows. It does apply to quality education, counseling, and probably a few other things which a lot of people in the country don't have access to.

People tend to view the function of prisons through an idealistic lens, trying to emphasize either rehabilitation or punishment. In reality it is in everyone's interest to reduce the liklihood that the prisoner will commit more crimes, and determining what works in that regard can be an empirical process, rather than some big ideological thing.

Re:What pisses me off here is

[slavemowgli]

I fail to see how anyone could moderate that as "Troll" instead of "Insightful". It may not have been the most politely-worded comment, but there's more than a grain of truth in there (and this is slashdot, anyway, so if you want politeness, go somewhere else).

How a prison SHOULD be run

[Raverrn]

Down here in Louisiana, we've got a prison called Angola. It's pretty much in the middle of nowhere, and covers a very large area. Inmates there grow their own food (both plant and animal), are currently bulding additions to the prison (an Olympic pool and 9-hole golf course, both for wardens), and have the opportunity to get an education. (GED or degree in General Studies or Philosophy) For all this hard work they are paid 4 cents an hour, two of which are taken for savings.

The wardens and their families live on the grounds in what is essentilly a zero-crime neighborhood.

Cost of keeping inmates for one year: $2300

Oh, and while there are T.V's, there are no ideo games. And the cooking (also done by inmates) is excellent.

Re:How a prison SHOULD be run

[lachlan76]

Your suggestion is to make prisons into a labour camp, where their lives involve building luxuries for the wardens for 4 cents an hour?

Re:Not quite right

[dynamo]

one case, huh?
surprise! it's from texas!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/11/obscenity.tria l. reut/

personal growth games - Good WILD DIVINE ref!

[shpoffo]

Excellent reference - I wish I had Mod points for you. But I don't so thus I reply in hopes that others see and listen.

.
-shpoffo

grounding != jail

[PMuse]

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.

a) Being 18 eliminates "getting grounded" all together. Offenses that would get a child grounded go unpunished in adults because adults have peers, not parents (in formal authority).

b) The acts that adults get jailed for months or years for doing (drugs, assault, theft, destruction, murder, etc.) are not acts that mere grounding could ever have addressed.

c) The use of the word "time-out" to describe a punishment is less than a few decades old. Jail is a millenia-old concept. Jail is not some defective form of "time-out". Judge jail on its own merits or demerits, but don't saddle it with new-age parenting baggage.

Re:grounding != jail

[lachlan76]

The acts that adults get jailed for months or years for doing (drugs, assault, theft, destruction, murder, etc.)

Because no kids have ever done them, right?

I've known kids that have had the cops come over and fucking arrest people because of a fight. Things are insane as it is.

Re:Not quite right

[Phisbut]

I can't disagree with you, because I have no idea what 'recidivating' means...

And that is why dictionaries exist...

recidivating

recidivate Audio pronunciation of "recidivating" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-sd-vt) intr.v. recidivated, recidivating, recidivates To return to a previous pattern of behavior, especially to return to criminal habits.

Re:Not quite right

[gtkuhn]

Because the pigs are some of the most habitual law breakers around? Not to mebtion the only profession that gets to shoot civillians.