Gube  OH, I see.  Well that certainly makes sense, I would hate to deny the guards a/c .   Colitas ..good point!  reading and writing material are great ideas.  

Individual TVs?   dang...SWEET!   

Nope...shouldn't happen for prisoners.

Gube you are completely right on the TV issue.  It's odd, but you have give them privileges (things) in order to take them away as punishment.  If a lifer has nothing but walls to look and nothing to read or do,  then what keeps him/her from assaulting or killing guard.  They already are doing so who cares.  So yes, there has to be an incentive programs and tools work with.  My problem is that at some prisons it has become softer or easier, I'm not sure of the right word.  No, being locked up isn't a picnic, but the privileges should be just that.  You act right, you get things.  Not get things right off the bat.  Seeing what the other guys has in the next cell and wanting to same is a great incentive to act they way you need to to get for yourself.  Kind of like children.  Very big, and dangerous children, but children none the less.  I do however believe that all prisons at least within the same state should have the same rules and the same items allowed.  The expectation being of course clothing due to different climates.  Although I know how the systems works, I still believe that they shouldn't have individual TVs but maybe a one or two in the rec area or whatever it is called these days.  And if you are on a security level where there isn't an area where groups of inmates can gather, then that is there bad for being at that risk.  I know some levels and some prisons have this.  This is were I go back to all prisons should have the same rules....and trust me they don't.  I think that an inmate should be allowed to have a radio, reading material, writing material and "earned" food in their cells.  Not TVs.  Because now we get into cable because antennas are a security risk.  I know many hard working people who don't have cable.  That isn't a necessity in my opinion. 

 Sparks I think one reason that prisons have air conditioning is for the prison guards. They claim that there's a shortage of prison guards. Take the A/C away and there really will be. The Tent city in Arizona is a county jail not a state prison ....Big difference what they can get away with. Most people in county jail are doing less then one year so they will put up with no A/C in hopes of receiving good time and get out early. You take A/C away from state prisoners doing 10 -20 years or even life and those prisoners will act out often against guards. T.V's are also a tool to keep some inmates in line. I have to agree with PD that prison life is anything but comfortable. Living in constant fear doesn't sound very Serene to me. Have any of you ever watched the TV show locked up about life in prisons. The show takes cameras into prisons and reports what life is like inside the walls of prisons. I do agree that teaching education to the inmates is important. Most inmates do n't have a high school diploma and some studys shows that the inmate has a better chance of staying out of prison if he/she recieves their high school diploma.

 I think we agree that disenfranchisement from the larger society results in criminal behavior.  Since we are a very materialistic society, poor people are almost automatically disenfranchised.  We don't seem to give a dam about it - I wouldn't be surprised if there is more vocational education available at CCI than at TUSD.  The attitude seems to be that we can import more mexicans or send more work to China forever.

As we out-source more and more tasks from this country, more and more lesser-skilled Americans (the same folks trying to live paycheck to paycheck on rice and beans, I'd guess) are forced onto welfare and stripped of the basic dignity and more importantly,  cultural engagement that comes from making your own way.  This is a cultural problem, not a prison construction or prison treatment problem.

I could go on, since culture covers everything - but  I'm sure you noticed my reference to "arbitrary court decisions".   Perhaps we agree that without cultural underpinnings that place value on something other than material success, we don't have a chance to outrun increases in criminal behavior.  

Effort has to be made on the "supply-side" of the equation, otherwise the cost of prisons, and their lack of success will lead people to join in calling for more and more brutal treatment and more and more incarcerations - which sounds like a very un-american way to go - as it will force everyone without the money to hire private guards and homes in gated communities to live in crappier and crappier conditions - and our prisons will have to be even worse?  Before long, our prisons turn into French labor camps, ala Papillion.

- ProgressoDasani, Bleeding Heart

PD, I have never been in prison, I have never even visited one.  However, there was a time in my life when I was homeless and very poor.  I was about 18 years old.  I sometimes wished I would get arrested for something so that I could have a decent meal, a safe place to sleep, watch some TV and have a cool breeze on my face, instead I went to a mission that had no A/C, a lack of food, Plus I had to sleep on the floor for several days until a pregnant woman moved out. (I'm not complaining)

Today I do quite well and would certainly not be comfortable in a prison, but I still don't have central A/C in my home. (grin)

Many people I have met from L.A. live in cockroach infested homes and  have a diet of rice and beans. They can't even live paycheck to paycheck.  Yes,  there are poor and homeless in America still today.   So, my question to you is why should criminals be treated better than the poor in America?

I wonder if  a larger percent of America's crime is done by the poor, anyone know?   Anyway, It doesn't seem like it would be much punishment at all to have A/C, heating, decent food and a safe place to sleep if you were a poor American.

I don't know much about his subject....  you tell me.. 

I've visited them many times... but I already told you that.  Why don't you explain to me what I don't understand?

If you have worked at a prison you understand or even visited one.

All this talk about how comfortable prison is...is it coming from folks who have lived there?  It doesn't look comfortable to me.

As for education, we should be so lucky if all the prisoners got educated.  Fat chance of that.

I don't know about yanking education...education is reform and I would rather people in prison learn something good,, other than getting back out and doing the same things again. However, Eek has a point, prison life shouldn't be comfortable.  I would like to see longer sentencing and more prisons, but why can't hey build them in the middle of the desert like AZ does?

Maybe if the States made prison a little less of a comfort then repeat offenders may think twice about going back in...I say pull the plug on the t.v.'s, computers,and the air conditioning.. And getting educated in prison needs to stop and that money being used needs to be sent to the schools. Prison seems a little too comfortable in my opinion... 

I certainly don't have anything against yanking out the cable tv, the weight rooms, or other things often cited as prison perks.  I wouldn't be surprised if correctional officers see the TV as helpful to their jobs, though - it isn't only small children who can use the electronic babysitter.  If that is what you mean by making it less pleasant, then I've no problem.

But how pleasant can those things make that situation?

Yes, we need prisons, and more of them than I'd like, for sure.  But we don't need to be locking up every meth-loser and two-bit hood who would benefit from 30 days hard labor either.  And reforming California's concealed carry laws, so that every armed robber at the 7-11 counter could expect the guy coming out of the bathroom to be packing would help too.

But we've become a more and more subservient and less responsible society across the board, always insisting of being treated liked children. Discipline for children often includes a lot of time-outs, so, along with our pre-work drug tests, our electronically surveilled communications, our arbitrary judicial rulings,  our searches, checkpoints,  and warning labels, we get what we should expect.

PD-I'm not sure that it's not just the effect of being from a lifestyle/social group that accepts and endorses criminal behavior.They often not only don't fear the system,they use it to their benefit.Sure,if the first time someone gets locked up,they realize that nothing bad is really going to happen to them,they're more likely to re-offend,especially if they're 'connected". I agree that the tool is"dulled".That's why I feel that it needs to be more unpleasant.So that they will fear it again.I don't think that locking them up less is really going to cause them to commit less crime though. 

Now an interesting question might be-Did your familiarity with the intake process make you start considering criminal activity due to less fear of the institution?

The implication to me,is that there are dangerous people around us that would like to harm us and that people are (rightly) afraid and are taking the precautions available to them to protect themselves and their property and sometimes us.In the old days,people often carried guns for protection instead.Now it's generally only the criminals doing that.Perhaps in those days,criminals didn't always get a chance to present evidence,have a fair trial,and file appeals.Think about it though,when was the last time that crime victims had those chances before the crimes were commited towards them.

I agree that high recidivism rates indicate that imprisonment is not an adequate deterrent for many people.  I argue that the the high lock-up rate works against its deterrent purpose.   As more and more of one's friends and family members enter the system, its fear-inducing power is reduced. The banality of the system works against it.  This tool. like others, are dulled by over-use.

I have experienced this in a minor way.  I was visiting prison in a charitable service capacity and the first time I entered, I was intimidated by the screening process with its multiple searches and levels of scrutiny I had to undergo.  After a few times, it became commonplace.  After a few more times, it ceased to bother me. 

What implications does that have for a civilian society more and more circumscribed by surveillance cameras, metal detectors, searches, and checkpoints - or even razor wire on downtown commercial lots in small-town Tehachapi?  No good ones, I'm afraid.

PD- I guess that it's an interpretation issue-I see that as evidence that our current method of incarceration is not a deterrent to many who choose to commit crimes.I think that we are doing many things wrong related to the issue.

I think that many of the related aspects can't be easily legislated away-home issues,poverty,unemployment,addictions.All of those factors have an effect on crime.But-sooner or later,the individual has to make the choice,out of his or her own free will,to CHOOSE to commit the crime or not.I feel that if there were stronger deterrents than we offer,there would be more people who would  just say "No".Most law-abiding people see incarceration as a choice they want to avoid,and for many,that works.Many repeat-offenders(repeatedly caught after what is often many more crimes)don't see it that way.For many,life inside is a break from the responsibilities on the outside and a time to hang with friends.No worries about job,rent,bills,relationship hassles,they get medical,food,get to work-out and watch TV."Going away" for a while is no big deal to many people,and therefore not a deterrent to them.

Would the fear of incarceration be enough to convince me to choose not to commit a crime?Sure.Those who have decided that that constitutes punishment?Apparently.That 1% of the population that is locked up?Obviously not.So how much deterrence do I want?Whatever it takes to make criminals choose to not commit the crime.I have watched neighbors,friends and family choose crime/incarceration.I know their lame excuses.I believe that if life was substantially less comfortable on the inside,they might choose to stay out.Hard unpaid labor to compensate for their cost to the state?Lack of perks?Tough conditions?

Do I think that lynching is really the answer?"No".We have the death penalty,and it doesn't seem to deter many.

TAC didn't put the razor wire up.  It was put up when the facility was used by Sundt for some wind turbine purpose.  TAC just didn't bother to remove the ugliness when they moved in, which I've always found ironic for an art center.  Somehow every other gallery I've gone to, including ones with walls full of art selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars have managed to maintain security systems that don't make their premises look like a World War I battleground....

As for deterrents to crime, we've got over 1% of the population locked up - and a much higher proportion than that of young men, who would be the obvious targets of your proposed (post fair trial, of course)  testicle hanging.  How much deterrence do you want?

Maybe we're doing something else wrong...