The one that makes me angriest is wildland firefighter prisoners can't get civilian wildland firefighting jobs after release. It is typically a job reserved for model prisoners and if they've performed admirably they should be prioritized for openings on release.
That's unconscionable. The only way these programs make any sense ethically is if the prisoners get a job automatically after release, which is a huge step up from the discrimination they face in the job market. California really should be more like Arizon, from TFA:
> In Arizona, jobs at Hickman’s are voluntary and often sought after, not just for the money, but also because employment and affordable housing are offered upon release.
How many (non white collar) felons have you hired?
I think these prisoners should be given consideration but job automatically? No. People often push for policies for which they don't have to comply with.
Well that is admirable (though clearly as you state there was an incentive). I hope you continue.
As I said I am very open to them be considered but I also don't think those who have committed offense against society should have priority over people who have not.
I do not care what crime one commits. No one deserves treatment like this. Though, I suppose that is hard for many to fathom considering cruelty is the point of the US Judicial/Justice System.
That statute (18 U.S. Code § 3582 - Imposition of a sentence of imprisonment) that authorizes imposing a sentence explicitly states this in section A:
(a)Factors To Be Considered in Imposing a Term of Imprisonment.—
The court, in determining whether to impose a term of imprisonment, and, if a term of imprisonment is to be imposed, in determining the length of the term, shall consider the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, recognizing that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation.
It is hard to fathom. People who murder others have done harm to society that can never be undone. Why do I care what happens to a man who stalked and killed a woman/women/men?
Where US culture is concerned, I would associate approval of “maximum suffering for sinners” with the “fire and brimstone hell” ideology that is thoroughly rooted in the imagery of the New Testament.
Whereas Judaism, for all the smiting G-d does, doesn't have a hell. Though to be fair to the NT, forgiveness is Jesus's whole schtick, but the penal system hardly seems forgiving. Maybe because of the deleterious legacy of Puritanism, and Calvanist predestination, with the idea that some people are born saved and others deserve their scarlet letters.
I concede, though I think this is a later innovation of the Rabbinate; Gehenna is an actual place, an ancient garbage dump, on the outskirts of Jerusalem. It is not referenced as a spiritual plane in the Torah like the Lake of Fire (Hell) in Christianity or Islam. It likely gained that interpretation under the influence of Platonism. I am not (yet) a Jew so I can't speak authoritatively to Jewish eschatology, but I think there's more room for give and take in the Talmud and Zohar (where Gehinnom is referenced) as it's the recorded wisdom of rabbis rather than Law itself. This is just my understanding based on my studies thus far.
That Jesus story comes from Rabbi Onkelos, a Roman convert who performed necromancy (!) to summon Jesus and ask questions about the afterlife. Apparently Gehinnom as described by the conjured spirit was indeed reserved for Jews who sinned; I think the unrighteous gentiles (not the Noahide) simply stop existing. They also got Shabbat and Yom Kippur off (I wonder if the summoning ate into Yeshua's break time.)
I'm not well versed in ancient Middle Eastern mythology, but what point are you trying to make? If these ideas were New Testament would it be more acceptable or less likely to occur or what?
The part where the state severely beats an innocent man and nails him to a couple of pieces of wood, and the guards hang around waiting for him to die in agony is a pretty central part of the New Testament.
And it turns out there are two other guys also undergoing the same fate. The one guy says - hey use your power and fight against the state and get us out of this mess. He is seen as a villain.
The other guy says, me and the other guy deserve what the state is doing to us, but you don't, but please just remember me in the afterlife. This guy is seen as a good guy.
So yes, there are some hints of this in the New Testament as well.
Given how many prisons treat incarceration as a loophole in the 13th amendment it probably shouldn't be a surprise that they don't take on-the-job accidents seriously. An attitude of "plenty more where that came from" is a natural consequence of such an exploitive system.
Federal prison guards often have bonuses based upon their UNICOR (the Federal slave labor corporation) work detail's output. Think about that. The prison guards, who have a financial interest in the UNICOR output, control every detail of these guys lives.
'Hey guys, anyone who wants to volunteer to work overtime can. Also, my bonus depends on it. Anyone want to bring up any safety issues that might slow production? Also, I will be working the UNIT night shift all next week.'
Also FYI, UNICOR does CAD work for McDonalds remodels. Knowing that it kinda makes sense why McDonalds went from bright happy places to the dark, dreary places they are now.
I would feel safer if the people that use the 13th amendment in such a way were imprisoned themselves. I do not like the idea that people capable of such sadism are free to walk amongst us.
Other things the writers purposely intended but we abandoned because it was eventually obviously heinous:
Woman can't vote. People who aren't wealthy can't vote. Black people can't vote, but they ARE used to apportion voting power in Congress. No standardized system of "who takes over if someone murders the president?". A massive lame duck period when the president gets voted out.
It's only recently that congress has decided that we can't amend the constitution, despite that being such an important and essential part of how the constitution was supposed to work, that the founders put together a bunch of amendments before the constitution was even ratified. They 100% intend for the constitution to change with the times.
> It's only recently that congress has decided that we can't amend the constitution, despite that being such an important and essential part of how the constitution was supposed to work, that the founders put together a bunch of amendments before the constitution was even ratified.
Congress hasn't decided this. It's just gotten so polarized and dysfunctional that getting the broad consensus needed for meaningful amendments is seen as not worth it, because it's a foregone conclusion that it will fail.
And that's why, instead of passing laws and amendments, we over-rely on the reinterpretation of existing laws using the judicial branch and give more powers to the executive branch when possible. It's to deal with perpetual gridlock. (I'm not saying this is good, BTW; IMO, we need to reduce gridlock in general).
I think most people mistakenly think slavery was outlawed in the USA, and don't realize that it is codified in the amended section of the Constitution.
Well, it's a front door. There's really nothing sneaky about this. The people who made this law were completely OK with prisoners being slaves and said so openly. And if I was to hazard a guess I would assume the prisoners slaves of their time had a much higher mortality rate than ours do.
It is still acceptable to make "don't drop the soap" jokes on mainstream non-edgy (Think Jay Leno, John Stewart, or Jimmy Fallon) talk shows in the US. Our Criminal System and the lack of mainstream antipathy towards it is horrendous.
A ruthless prison system works only when the number of laws are few and the crimes are few. The only absolutely heinous people go to jail. With the big government that uses different lawfare tactics to go after people it does not like, it becomes pretty meaningless but it is hard to get rid of the ruthlessness.
Reminds me of Singapore. Only about 500 acts govern them, a handful of which include caning or execution. If you avoid drugs and weapons and follow the golden rule though, very little chance of problems.
The idea is not to agree with the law or that the law is good or even essential but by having few of them you avoid the misery and achieve better compliance.
As someone who has spent time in that 'city-state' I can confirm that not being east asian will make you a target in the eyes of the majority who have vilified foreigners as job-stealing parasites while the multinationals they work for try everything to hire locals and hire the foreigners as last resort. This then makes sure there are multiple cameras ready to capture you breaking any law, local people trying to test you by shouting in public or pushing you in the way knowing full well that any opposition will be documented, colored as entitled aggression and will be used to mount public pressure to make an example out of you. Source below of what happened to a white women, just add biases against south and south east asian men to the mix and I can tell you the image of singapore projected will not match what people feel when they live there.
https://archive.ph/tEwTp
The president of Singapore,Tharman Shanmugaratnam, is literally a man of south asian decent.
He won the election with an overwhelming majority, 70%, the most ever.
Are they the only people working there? No? Then this is sad and dangerous but not a 'prisoner' problem, not essentially.
For a prisoner to choose a dangerous job working like many other regular citizens, is not a punishment.
Not supporting the lack of safety and oversight. Just that, lots of people work dangerous jobs. Let's view this through clear glass, uncolored by 'prisoner abuse' slant?
Are we arguing that these things are worse because they disproportionately affect one arbitrary grouping? Would it be better if it affected everyone equally? Would that make us happier? This is one of those contexts where “diversity” starts to get strange.
I don't think that the statement seeks to portray this as "better" or "worse".
It's reflecting on the fact that this situation affects the same groups of people that were negatively affected when slavery was a more mainstream practice in the US.
It's as if some rules have changed on paper, but in practice the same "values" and behaviours persist.
My understanding is one of the dangerous jobs mentioned, fire fighting, is not mandated and they allow the prisoner opt out. They also give the prisoners time off their sentence for everyday they are on duty. Is that correct?
I'm not sure you understand how power dynamics work, what 'optional' means in a setting where authorities have complete control over your life. Kind of like it's 'optional' to comply with extortion so I guess it should be allowed.
Read this ruling regarding an inmate that was regularly feed expired/bug infested food, as well as injured due to the facilities, the process the inmate had to go through, and the outcome being that the court took no action. There system is designed to stonewall/paralyze inmates while giving the appearance of being a just system:
Edit: Also note this case is around a Federal Detention Center, a place for people that have not yet been convicted or sentenced, not even a prison. This is the 'easy part' of the process for people given the presumption of innocence.
From what I have seen, it truly is optional. They literally just let you turn them down if you don't want to be a volunteer firefighter. There is no punishment or extortion involved. Do you have any evidence otherwise?
Any sort of contaminated food isn't relevant to extortion. Thanks for the irrelevant article though.
My original post was literally just me saying this is what I heard and asking if I was correct. Why should I provide proof when I am literally just asking for confirmation? The person I was responding to made the claim that there was extortion going on, not me.
How is this feel good nonsense? There's no feelz involved, other than your response.
You think it is justified behavior because 'others do it'. Not sure that's how morality or judgement of societies works. The fact that your immediate response is to defend the behavior based on appeals to 'but others do it' not on the basis of actual morality just re-enforces my point.
The State of Alabama has stopped nearly all paroles. There is far too much money to be made from criminals so the state aims to keep them as long as possible.
