In Maine, prisoners are thriving in remote jobs(mainepublic.org)
mainepublic.org
In Maine, prisoners are thriving in remote jobs
https://www.mainepublic.org/2025-08-29/in-maine-prisoners-are-thriving-in-remote-jobs-and-other-states-are-taking-notice
227 comments
There are also perverse electoral incentives to having a prison in your voting district. Generally the prisoners count toward your population numbers but they can’t vote. No pesky three fifths compromise.
If I had my 'druthers, disenfranchisement for felonies is anti-democratic nonsense, so people in prison should retain voting rights.
The only ethically-hard problem is which jurisdiction their vote should count in, since they cannot demonstrate it by choosing where to live. Perhaps a choice between:
1. The location of the prison, if their main interest is the conditions of their detention rather than anything outside.
2. The location of their property or close family, because they're still paying property-taxes or school levies etc. and they will be returning there later.
The only ethically-hard problem is which jurisdiction their vote should count in, since they cannot demonstrate it by choosing where to live. Perhaps a choice between:
1. The location of the prison, if their main interest is the conditions of their detention rather than anything outside.
2. The location of their property or close family, because they're still paying property-taxes or school levies etc. and they will be returning there later.
I've never understood the not allowing felons to vote, even while incarcerated. Does serving time really mean you should not get the same say in leaders as everyone else? As if being incarcerated isn't punishment enough, but disenfranchising on top just seems over the top.
Many people live in an area, but keep their voting registration in another. They are even able to vote without having to return to their registered polling place. Allowing inmates to vote could just as easily be handled the same way.
Many people live in an area, but keep their voting registration in another. They are even able to vote without having to return to their registered polling place. Allowing inmates to vote could just as easily be handled the same way.
> Does serving time really mean you should not get the same say in leaders as everyone else?
It's worse than that. It's the erasure of a check against bad laws. If you pass bad laws that destroy communities by bringing about mass incarceration, the obvious thing to happen next is that you lose the votes of all the people whose lives you've destroyed. Except that you took their votes away too.
It's worse than that. It's the erasure of a check against bad laws. If you pass bad laws that destroy communities by bringing about mass incarceration, the obvious thing to happen next is that you lose the votes of all the people whose lives you've destroyed. Except that you took their votes away too.
For an example of the rot, see Florida: 10% of voting-age citizens have had their vote stolen by the local government. [0] A 2019 referendum to abolish felony disenfranchisement passed with huge margins [1], but then the Republicans passed a new "pay to vote" law, saying it wasn't enough to serve time, but people also had to pay significant fines.
[0] https://www.sentencingproject.org/fact-sheet/florida-bans-vo...
[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voti...
[0] https://www.sentencingproject.org/fact-sheet/florida-bans-vo...
[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voti...
Yeah, do another referendum and get rid of the pay to vote thing.
Poor people and minorities are who are in prison. Removing voting rights from those groups is a feature, not a flaw, in my opinion.
To be clear, I'm saying it's garbage, but it's garbage very much on purpose.
To be clear, I'm saying it's garbage, but it's garbage very much on purpose.
We’re in agreement here. Just like the bail system. Working as intended if not as designed.
Exactly. It is a form of modern day slavery in many US states.
Just wait until the current regime finishes their plans, which include hacking the exception in Section 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment [0] to bring back slavery for prisoners.
>> Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
The person occupying the Vice President's chair stated clearly [1] "Medicaid cuts in Senate tax bill 'immaterial' compared to ICE increases".
They aren't building all those for-profit prisons for nothing.
Beware.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/07/01/vanc...
>> Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
The person occupying the Vice President's chair stated clearly [1] "Medicaid cuts in Senate tax bill 'immaterial' compared to ICE increases".
They aren't building all those for-profit prisons for nothing.
Beware.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/07/01/vanc...
And of course, even if the rich go to prison and lose the ability to actually vote, they have the ability to support/earn favors by donating.
> I've never understood the not allowing felons to vote, even while incarcerated.
It's literally unconscionable in any kid of democracy to me.
It's literally unconscionable in any kid of democracy to me.
> Many people live in an area, but keep their voting registration in another.
I guess state laws vary a lot, but are you sure that’s legal? You probably are required to have your address updated, even if moving within the same precinct. If they then allow you a choice of locations, sounds fine, but your wording sounded like maybe you don’t tell them you moved, which is probably not legal.
I guess state laws vary a lot, but are you sure that’s legal? You probably are required to have your address updated, even if moving within the same precinct. If they then allow you a choice of locations, sounds fine, but your wording sounded like maybe you don’t tell them you moved, which is probably not legal.
College kids are a prime example. People working remote jobs away from family are another. It is not illegal to own multiple domiciles (as long as your loan papers match primary residence seeing that is being weaponized now), and live back and forth between them.
IANAL but I think domicile is only one place by definition. You can have multiple residences. Your domicile might be required to be the place you spend the most time at. College students would be a common counter-example, if they can live at college for 9+ months and still be registered at their parent’s home or such.
Should someone convicted of voter fraud be allowed to vote?
But I think the laws in some U.S. states do actually allow felons to vote under certain circumstances.
But I think the laws in some U.S. states do actually allow felons to vote under certain circumstances.
I just looked this up earlier, and there are only 2 states that do. Vermont and Maine allow all prisoners to vote. Other states allow some depending on conviction. I was unaware of this. I was aware some states allow felons to vote once released while other states never reinstate that right. That is some heinous shit. No other way to put it
> Should someone convicted of voter fraud be allowed to vote?
Yes. Why shouldn't they?
Yes. Why shouldn't they?
This is like requiring a stranger that attempted to break into your house be forcibly allowed on your property later against your wishes (assuming you rationally consider such a person untrustworthy and no mitigating circumstances or other data exists that would make you consider them trustworthy)
It's not like that at all! There's no right to enter a stranger's house in the first place.
Absolutely. And in prison it should be easier to verify that they vote just once
Do you know if anyone has ever sued to either not pay taxes while not allowed to vote, or to be allowed to vote? Ye olde "no taxation without representation"?
There is no legal principle in the US that couples taxation to the right to vote.
Several issues here:
1. Declaration of Independence versus Constitution. Not the same in terms of legal weight.
2. You're implicitly combining "representation" with "voting." The writers of the Declaration of Independence believed (even if we dislike it today) that those are separate. You can tell because all their wives and daughters were still prohibited from voting for generations.
3. If what you're suggesting applied, then wouldn't that mean everybody who hasn't registered to vote, or noncitizens and those under 18--are all exempt from sales tax and income tax?
1. Declaration of Independence versus Constitution. Not the same in terms of legal weight.
2. You're implicitly combining "representation" with "voting." The writers of the Declaration of Independence believed (even if we dislike it today) that those are separate. You can tell because all their wives and daughters were still prohibited from voting for generations.
3. If what you're suggesting applied, then wouldn't that mean everybody who hasn't registered to vote, or noncitizens and those under 18--are all exempt from sales tax and income tax?
That’s not a real legal principle.
Why would they sue to not pay taxes? They make no money that would qualify as taxable, so they would owe no taxes on income not earned. Even people working part time on very low wages can make so little they do not owe. They still have to file though. Never considered if inmates have to file each year or not
there's all sorts of taxes and other impositions/obligationsthat don't require income.
please enlighten me
property taxes, vehicle registration and insurance.
someone serving time is going to be worried about vehicle registration and insurance? just claim it as "off road" with the state since it's obvious you will not be driving it. no need for insurance on a car that's not being driven. property tax might be an issue, but I seriously doubt it's a large percentage of inmates that need to consider it. all in all, nice stretch, but off topic really
> I've never understood the not allowing felons to vote, even while incarcerated.
The bulk of felony-disenfranchisement laws have a clear causal connection to preventing newly-freed slaves from voting, as they were enacted alongside terrible laws ("Black codes") which did a lot of blatantly-evil stuff to force former slaves either into a shadow of their old servitude or into jail.
The problem is some people imaging voting is a prize you get for making the government happy, which can be clawed-back.
Instead, votes in a democracy are something we are owed due to the control that government exercises over our lives. If the government exerts extra control to lock you in a cage, that increases the moral necessity of a vote, rather than decreasing it.
The bulk of felony-disenfranchisement laws have a clear causal connection to preventing newly-freed slaves from voting, as they were enacted alongside terrible laws ("Black codes") which did a lot of blatantly-evil stuff to force former slaves either into a shadow of their old servitude or into jail.
The problem is some people imaging voting is a prize you get for making the government happy, which can be clawed-back.
Instead, votes in a democracy are something we are owed due to the control that government exercises over our lives. If the government exerts extra control to lock you in a cage, that increases the moral necessity of a vote, rather than decreasing it.
if somebody defects against society very seriously, damaging others, i have no problem with stripping them of legal rights. this is in fact exactly the principle underlying imprisonment. constitutional rights are granted by men, not god, in service of shared prosperity; democracy is good insofar as it produces good results, not because it is the intrinsic source of good. there is no higher construct to appeal to, like this platonic ideal of democracy you're gesturing at
Okay so now you’ve set an arbitrary limit with “very seriously” yet you do not define what that means. Is grand theft auto worthy of striping someone’s vote? Is conviction of marijuana possession? Is shop lifting? Is embezzlement? Where’s the line of very serious for you? It won’t be the same for someone else. Do you see the issue inherent with your proposal?
it is arbitrary yes, but the point of democracy is to allow society to codify these subjective questions into rigid laws. I mean, what is the arbitrary line between tough love and child abuse? We have to decide somewhere, and we use democracy to draw that line.
Let's consider the consequences of that line with respect to electoral math. If we consider only serious criminals, e.g. murderers, they constitute a negligible proportion of the population and with high probability the number of election outcomes changed by allowing them to vote or not would be none.
By contrast, if you lump in people convicted of things like drug possession, that is enough people to change the outcome of some elections. And in general it's a strong heuristic that if huge numbers of people are committing a particular crime, it's a result of flaws in the law or society rather than flaws in huge numbers of different people.
So the only time disenfranchising felons matters to the outcome is when you get the line wrong, implying that it shouldn't be done because it shouldn't affect the outcome unless it's being done improperly.
By contrast, if you lump in people convicted of things like drug possession, that is enough people to change the outcome of some elections. And in general it's a strong heuristic that if huge numbers of people are committing a particular crime, it's a result of flaws in the law or society rather than flaws in huge numbers of different people.
So the only time disenfranchising felons matters to the outcome is when you get the line wrong, implying that it shouldn't be done because it shouldn't affect the outcome unless it's being done improperly.
The big issue are perverse incentives here. If felony sentence means no vote, the best thing you can do is to criminalize demographics you dont like as much as possible.
That way you can have pleasure of mistreating them and also prevent them from voting.
That way you can have pleasure of mistreating them and also prevent them from voting.
Unfortunately you're also engaging in an appeal to universal virtue.
It's weird because your argument doesn't seem to disagree with the notion that people should stay enfranchised, other than you saying specifically people should be disenfranchised for breaking a law. But you're now discussing lines so I guess you mean, literally any crime means no more voting.
A good democracy, and by that I mean useful for humans, isn't good by trying to be perfectly virtuous, it's good because it has recursive mechanisms to maintain its usefulness to humans. The primary mechanism is voting. For that reason I personally believe nothing should be allowed to remove the ability to use that primary mechanism, since the obvious outcome is a fascist is elected, and begins seeking means to strip the right to vote from his opponents, ensuring his perpetual rule. Modern example: I have a little antifa flag on my backpack, and therefore am now considered a terrorist in the USA, and can be arrested and have my right to vote stripped (other democratic mechanisms might prevent this, for now).
What crime would I have committed? Declaring an ideology a terrorist group is nonsensical but possible. Me suddenly being a terrorist crossed that line for you though.
So does speeding. So does operating your motor vehicle without checking your brake lights and turning indicators, every time. So does riding on a horse backwards in a specific town in Texas (don't forget local jurisdictions have their own laws, often insane!)
It's weird because your argument doesn't seem to disagree with the notion that people should stay enfranchised, other than you saying specifically people should be disenfranchised for breaking a law. But you're now discussing lines so I guess you mean, literally any crime means no more voting.
A good democracy, and by that I mean useful for humans, isn't good by trying to be perfectly virtuous, it's good because it has recursive mechanisms to maintain its usefulness to humans. The primary mechanism is voting. For that reason I personally believe nothing should be allowed to remove the ability to use that primary mechanism, since the obvious outcome is a fascist is elected, and begins seeking means to strip the right to vote from his opponents, ensuring his perpetual rule. Modern example: I have a little antifa flag on my backpack, and therefore am now considered a terrorist in the USA, and can be arrested and have my right to vote stripped (other democratic mechanisms might prevent this, for now).
What crime would I have committed? Declaring an ideology a terrorist group is nonsensical but possible. Me suddenly being a terrorist crossed that line for you though.
So does speeding. So does operating your motor vehicle without checking your brake lights and turning indicators, every time. So does riding on a horse backwards in a specific town in Texas (don't forget local jurisdictions have their own laws, often insane!)
> What crime would I have committed?
This is a personal decision, but would you say the same about someone with a small Nazi swastika on their backpack?
This is a personal decision, but would you say the same about someone with a small Nazi swastika on their backpack?
That might be relevant if antifa ever rounded up and slaughtered eleven million people.
It's relevant if you think logic is worth something.
Well, first, I reject both sidesism because Nazism is an ideology that wants me and my friends to die, and denies our very humanity, and my ideology doesn't really want anyone to die, and absolutely does not deny anyone's humanity.
However, under liberal democracy I personally don't believe the wearing of a swastika should be a crime, though I don't mind if people wearing swastikas are rejected from every interaction they attempt to have, denied business everywhere. The simple banning of nazis memorabilia doesn't seem to be doing anything to stop the rise of nazism in Germany so it seems pointless overall. The Germans had their opportunity to actually apply this anti-nazi law when banning the AFD came up, and they failed to act, so it seems the only thing the law is good for is preventing people from playing Wolfenstein.
Under other forms of society I think the wearing of a swastika should result in the ejection of someone from society entirely.
However, under liberal democracy I personally don't believe the wearing of a swastika should be a crime, though I don't mind if people wearing swastikas are rejected from every interaction they attempt to have, denied business everywhere. The simple banning of nazis memorabilia doesn't seem to be doing anything to stop the rise of nazism in Germany so it seems pointless overall. The Germans had their opportunity to actually apply this anti-nazi law when banning the AFD came up, and they failed to act, so it seems the only thing the law is good for is preventing people from playing Wolfenstein.
Under other forms of society I think the wearing of a swastika should result in the ejection of someone from society entirely.
You're the perfect person to have illustrated this. Someone could've committed no crime, as you're claiming for yourself with your symbol, and you'd still want them ejected because of a symbol.
You are in principle no different to the people you're complaining about. You've just got a smaller set of symbols than they do that you don't like.
You are in principle no different to the people you're complaining about. You've just got a smaller set of symbols than they do that you don't like.
I can understand stripping them of the right temporarily while in prison. That's the time in which they pay their debt to society for the harm they're convicted of. Some rights are restricted during that period.
But once it's determined that the debt has been repaid and they're free to live outside and participate in society again, it seems hard to justify them not also participating in the democratic process.
But once it's determined that the debt has been repaid and they're free to live outside and participate in society again, it seems hard to justify them not also participating in the democratic process.
> [in prison they] pay their debt to society
How exactly is taking away an inmates vote "paying me back" for a crime in my community? "Society" isn't actually benefiting here.
Let's go down the list of justifications:
1. Is disenfranchisement rehabilitative justice? No, if anything it's the opposite, preparing them to fail when they get out, promoting ignorance and helplessness instead of engagement in the political process.
2. Is disenfranchisement punitive justice? Not usefully, because the worst criminals won't care anyway, instead it tends to hurt the people who deserve it the least, the people who would otherwise try to work through "the system."
3. Is disenfranchisement a deterrent? No, LOL. Nobody goes: "OK, I was going to commit the crime and risk being caught and shot or jailed for many years, buuuuut then I realized I wouldn't be able to vote, so I'm out."
What's left? Bad reasons, like helping politicians get away with abusive policies.
How exactly is taking away an inmates vote "paying me back" for a crime in my community? "Society" isn't actually benefiting here.
Let's go down the list of justifications:
1. Is disenfranchisement rehabilitative justice? No, if anything it's the opposite, preparing them to fail when they get out, promoting ignorance and helplessness instead of engagement in the political process.
2. Is disenfranchisement punitive justice? Not usefully, because the worst criminals won't care anyway, instead it tends to hurt the people who deserve it the least, the people who would otherwise try to work through "the system."
3. Is disenfranchisement a deterrent? No, LOL. Nobody goes: "OK, I was going to commit the crime and risk being caught and shot or jailed for many years, buuuuut then I realized I wouldn't be able to vote, so I'm out."
What's left? Bad reasons, like helping politicians get away with abusive policies.
> debt has been repaid
I know people say this, but I think this framing likely generates anti-prison arguments because it basically doesn’t make any sense. How does being in a cage for X years repay society? It doesn’t. It does keep the harmful person away from society though, which is a very different and useful thing (in many cases, obviously imprisonment for some crimes is dumb).
I know people say this, but I think this framing likely generates anti-prison arguments because it basically doesn’t make any sense. How does being in a cage for X years repay society? It doesn’t. It does keep the harmful person away from society though, which is a very different and useful thing (in many cases, obviously imprisonment for some crimes is dumb).
Being in prison is the punishment. It is not restitution, but as part of the punishment restitution could be imposed. It's hard to pay that restitution while incarcerated though. Some people advocate that just because one has been released from incarceration that they should still not be allowed to vote until any moneys owed have been paid. That could be fines from the court as well as restitution to victims.
> this is in fact exactly the principle underlying imprisonment.
No, the principle underlying imprisonment is to protect others and rehabilitate the criminal.
No, the principle underlying imprisonment is to protect others and rehabilitate the criminal.
[deleted]
> I've never understood the not allowing felons to vote, even while incarcerated.
It's the racism. It's why the 13th amendment allows slavery for criminals and why Black people are disproportionately targeted and imprisoned.
It's the racism. It's why the 13th amendment allows slavery for criminals and why Black people are disproportionately targeted and imprisoned.
Probably the location they were last registered to vote? If they've never been registered to vote, then the place they were last domiciled?
If we're on the democratic reforms train, then this is all a silly discussion we're forced to have because the US doesn't have proportional representation.
If we're on the democratic reforms train, then this is all a silly discussion we're forced to have because the US doesn't have proportional representation.
There would certainly be more incentive to be seen as rehabilitating, rather than just 'tough on crime'. Since 'False Positives' in the legal system could come back to bite you as a representative.
Or the same thing that happens when you move abroad: you vote in your last place of residence
You could also just use the last place they lived in before prison.
That makes sense along the lines of their second proposal, but doesn't address the concerns of the first. Part of democracy means voting for the folks who govern you, but a prisoner might be left unable to vote in an election for the local state or municipal governments.
Fore example, someone with a 10+ year sentence has a compelling interest in local candidates that have different platforms that will affect the parole-rules and phone-call-costs next year.
You could let them choose between that and where they're locked up. I think that's generally how it's worked for college students, although some states are now trying to keep them from voting in their college towns.
In some states, until they are off parole or never again even. Maine doesn't disenfranchise their prisoners at all though
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/20...
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/20...
TIL - this seems supremely messed up. If anything, they should count towards the place of their original residence.
how would non-voters affect voting results?
Not the results, but the weight given to the results.
Places with a greater population tend to get more representatives in a state or federal legislature, all else being equal.
This makes sense for minors (part of voter-households, to be voters later) and noncitizens (either in voter-households, or at least with freedom of travel) but it becomes a perverse-incentive when we start talking about people forced to be in a specific region by a government that put them there and won't let them leave.
Places with a greater population tend to get more representatives in a state or federal legislature, all else being equal.
This makes sense for minors (part of voter-households, to be voters later) and noncitizens (either in voter-households, or at least with freedom of travel) but it becomes a perverse-incentive when we start talking about people forced to be in a specific region by a government that put them there and won't let them leave.
In the constitution it says:
> Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons
"Free persons" in this case meant those not enslaved for life, so it includes incarcerated people. Representation apportionment also includes illegal immigrants under this clause.
> Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons
"Free persons" in this case meant those not enslaved for life, so it includes incarcerated people. Representation apportionment also includes illegal immigrants under this clause.
Voting districts:
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/22/1039643346/redistricting-pris...
The less voters you have in your district the easier it is to gerrymander a guaranteed win.
> Dehumanization seems to be the trend that the US is leading on right now.
Here in Brazil criminals are extremely dehumanized as well and used as electoral fodder. Leave them to rot in amounts proportional to the anger of the population against criminality as it rises again in the country, or at least the perception of it.
They are used to quickly let this social pressure out without actually solving anything and without making the population safer.
It would be really nice if remote work could serve as a viable vector for rehabilitation. Everyone involved would benefit from it, we just have to beware of the wrong kinds of incentives, so that people don't get thrown in jail only to serve as cheap remote labor later.
Here in Brazil criminals are extremely dehumanized as well and used as electoral fodder. Leave them to rot in amounts proportional to the anger of the population against criminality as it rises again in the country, or at least the perception of it.
They are used to quickly let this social pressure out without actually solving anything and without making the population safer.
It would be really nice if remote work could serve as a viable vector for rehabilitation. Everyone involved would benefit from it, we just have to beware of the wrong kinds of incentives, so that people don't get thrown in jail only to serve as cheap remote labor later.
If you want rehabilitation then you should ensure that they're working for more than slave wages and that money is set aside to be available to them upon their release.
Ensuring they can communicate with their families at no charge would be a huge plus as well.
Ensuring they can communicate with their families at no charge would be a huge plus as well.
Do we have high-quality studies on what facilitates rehabilitation?
What we're currently doing is creating a permanent underclass of "criminals" who are viewed as subhuman and used as political fodder. The status quo benefits wealthy people by providing cheap labour and a convenient scapegoat. People who have been incarcerated are impoverished and cut off from careers and social lives, so they can't function outside of prison.
There's lots of evidence that maintaining connection to family, and providing skills training reduces recidivism. You should be asking for studies proving that what we're currently doing is effective or humane.
There's lots of evidence that maintaining connection to family, and providing skills training reduces recidivism. You should be asking for studies proving that what we're currently doing is effective or humane.
Do we have conclusive evidence that causality isn’t actually reversed here in a large percentage of cases?
As in, a certain % of the population is, very unfortunately and not of their own volition, born with innate antisocial traits. They just happened to roll a 1 at birth on many attributes at once, and are stuck with it for life. Assuming humans are not a blank slate, many said humans will not be re-trainable to be pro-social. They will cause mayhem and misery to those around them unless isolated, humanely, with dignity and compassion, from the rest of society. Given a large enough of a denominator, that’s potentially millions of people.
And fair point around social ties being important here, I wonder what percentage of imprisonment that would prevent.
As in, a certain % of the population is, very unfortunately and not of their own volition, born with innate antisocial traits. They just happened to roll a 1 at birth on many attributes at once, and are stuck with it for life. Assuming humans are not a blank slate, many said humans will not be re-trainable to be pro-social. They will cause mayhem and misery to those around them unless isolated, humanely, with dignity and compassion, from the rest of society. Given a large enough of a denominator, that’s potentially millions of people.
And fair point around social ties being important here, I wonder what percentage of imprisonment that would prevent.
>Do we have conclusive evidence that causality isn’t actually reversed here in a large percentage of cases?
>As in, a certain % of the population is, very unfortunately and not of their own volition, born with innate antisocial traits.
Assuming the certain % is something meaningful and not like 1% then:
Yes, given that America and the world has run the largest ever social experiment, America imprisoning a higher percentage of their population than any other country and most other countries continuing to thrive with lower crime numbers than America (in cases where countries do not thrive obvious external and environmental factors are seen) it follows that America, a nation of immigrants with higher heterogeneity of the population than other nations of the Earth, does not have a population with a greater percentage of the population genetically predisposed to anti-sociability.
America has a population where 1 in 3 adults has a criminal record. If criminality was in any significant way genetically hard-wired in Americans it seems difficult to believe the country would have lasted as long as it has, although I admit my argument here may be slightly weak given the current state of things, but I think one can argue that is not the fault of the anti-social population.
Assuming the certain % is something meaningful and not like 1% then:
Yes, given that America and the world has run the largest ever social experiment, America imprisoning a higher percentage of their population than any other country and most other countries continuing to thrive with lower crime numbers than America (in cases where countries do not thrive obvious external and environmental factors are seen) it follows that America, a nation of immigrants with higher heterogeneity of the population than other nations of the Earth, does not have a population with a greater percentage of the population genetically predisposed to anti-sociability.
America has a population where 1 in 3 adults has a criminal record. If criminality was in any significant way genetically hard-wired in Americans it seems difficult to believe the country would have lasted as long as it has, although I admit my argument here may be slightly weak given the current state of things, but I think one can argue that is not the fault of the anti-social population.
Recent metaanalysis of intervention effectiveness (2025, UK) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/680101e3da5bb...
In short: humans are not inherently good 'uns or bad 'uns. The social interventions made by friends, families, community, state-run programs, have a discernable effect on reoffending rates.
In short: humans are not inherently good 'uns or bad 'uns. The social interventions made by friends, families, community, state-run programs, have a discernable effect on reoffending rates.
“Discernible effect” doesn’t really refute their point, it affirms it. Some aren’t responsive to any of that.
I think it’s logical that you’re both right, with the disagreement being in the ratio. If you honestly think all humans are born equal, I suggest visiting a mental ward, or more relevant here, watching some interviews/analysis of mass murderers. There’s a well accepted, by the medical field, by objective metrics, spectrum of self control, awareness, autonomy, and intelligence, expressed in humans. We’re not all the same. You typing here suggests you’re on the relatively extreme end of the “genetic luck” spectrum.
I think it’s logical that you’re both right, with the disagreement being in the ratio. If you honestly think all humans are born equal, I suggest visiting a mental ward, or more relevant here, watching some interviews/analysis of mass murderers. There’s a well accepted, by the medical field, by objective metrics, spectrum of self control, awareness, autonomy, and intelligence, expressed in humans. We’re not all the same. You typing here suggests you’re on the relatively extreme end of the “genetic luck” spectrum.
> If you honestly think all humans are born equal
I don't. But in addition to genetics, babies pop out of rich and poor vaginas. Socioeconomic status is a much stronger indicator for being incarcerated than genetics (not counting "male vs female"). There is also the theory that the children of prisoners grow up without fathers and are more likely to go to prison, thus perpetuating the cycle. Children that lose both parents (to imprisonment, drug addiction, abandonment) and enter foster care or become wards of the state have terrible life outcomes. Not genetic, but familial due to disrupted social support networks.
I also think that if, for example, you get addicted to heroin, and you don't have a good support network, that will be your only life until you're dead. But if you do have a good support network, you have an better chance of getting clean and staying clean.
I don't. But in addition to genetics, babies pop out of rich and poor vaginas. Socioeconomic status is a much stronger indicator for being incarcerated than genetics (not counting "male vs female"). There is also the theory that the children of prisoners grow up without fathers and are more likely to go to prison, thus perpetuating the cycle. Children that lose both parents (to imprisonment, drug addiction, abandonment) and enter foster care or become wards of the state have terrible life outcomes. Not genetic, but familial due to disrupted social support networks.
I also think that if, for example, you get addicted to heroin, and you don't have a good support network, that will be your only life until you're dead. But if you do have a good support network, you have an better chance of getting clean and staying clean.
At least in the US your race is stronger indicator for being incarcerated than your affluence levels. E.g. Black Americans are somewhere 10-30x more likely to be arrested for violent crimes than Asian Americans of similar poverty levels. Race here, similarly to economics, is again a confounding variable for something else that is actual causal to this. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353 . And again, the direction of causality here isn't obvious either.
Most likely it's a combination of genetics, cultural expectations, social support networks, and a litany of other elements that all come together to affect the ultimate outcome. Which aligns with your thesis around one's support network making a huge difference. But it's just important to point out that poverty by itself is not causal of crime, it simply makes it more likely given many other factors such as culture and community. It's mildly predictive, but up to a point.
Funnily enough, as a side-note, the stats show that most white-collar crime is committed by well-educated and affluent white men in their forties or older, causing a lot more financial harm than your everyday street crime added up.
Most likely it's a combination of genetics, cultural expectations, social support networks, and a litany of other elements that all come together to affect the ultimate outcome. Which aligns with your thesis around one's support network making a huge difference. But it's just important to point out that poverty by itself is not causal of crime, it simply makes it more likely given many other factors such as culture and community. It's mildly predictive, but up to a point.
Funnily enough, as a side-note, the stats show that most white-collar crime is committed by well-educated and affluent white men in their forties or older, causing a lot more financial harm than your everyday street crime added up.
I agree, and I think the other person will too. You’re correct.
But they’re also correct. There will be some subset of the population that will be, and remain, harmful to society. This isn’t even a purely human concept, and can be found in all species with collective/social behavior.
But they’re also correct. There will be some subset of the population that will be, and remain, harmful to society. This isn’t even a purely human concept, and can be found in all species with collective/social behavior.
> born with innate antisocial traits
If this were true, sociability wouldn't be so incredibly overwhelmingly correlated with trauma, and to the extent that trauma & poverty are related, poverty. This is a full and utter complete fact, it is foundational knowledge to social science, psychology and psychiatry.
People. Are. Not. Born. Bad. They're born to traumatized parents raised in a society that squeezes them for all they're worth.
> many said humans will not be re-trainable to be pro-social
The vast, vast majority of people absolutely could be, but they will never receive the resources (time, attention) to be better. It is not that we don't know how to help people, its that its /expensive/ and we /would rather punish them than help them/.
If this were true, sociability wouldn't be so incredibly overwhelmingly correlated with trauma, and to the extent that trauma & poverty are related, poverty. This is a full and utter complete fact, it is foundational knowledge to social science, psychology and psychiatry.
People. Are. Not. Born. Bad. They're born to traumatized parents raised in a society that squeezes them for all they're worth.
> many said humans will not be re-trainable to be pro-social
The vast, vast majority of people absolutely could be, but they will never receive the resources (time, attention) to be better. It is not that we don't know how to help people, its that its /expensive/ and we /would rather punish them than help them/.
I would imagine that the best data comes from places that have the highest rates of rehabilitation and lowest rates of re-offending. As usual the Nordic countries seem to have this stuff figured out.[0]
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid%3A42e604d8-31d0-4067-a08c-...
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid%3A42e604d8-31d0-4067-a08c-...
> As usual the Nordic countries seem to have this stuff figured out
Agree, but do we have experiments trying Nordic models in America to see what aspects of their model work here (and which may not)?
Agree, but do we have experiments trying Nordic models in America to see what aspects of their model work here (and which may not)?
On a related note, we have a bunch of replication failures in education for selection effects reasons. It turns if you have a highly motivated staff and engaged parents - pretty much every flavor of educational approach has a positive impact. When you try the same thing with an overworked and demotivated staff, unengaged parents, and with non-selective student populations that have behavior issues or other concerns ... most methods fall apart. And some of the approaches might even work, presuming similar conditions.
Getting policy right under adversarial conditions is really hard - even harder than the already hard problem of identifying and testing good policy.
Getting policy right under adversarial conditions is really hard - even harder than the already hard problem of identifying and testing good policy.
Here's one, in Pennsylvania:
https://www.science.org/content/article/how-will-little-scan...
Sounds like Oregon started but hasn't gotten very far:
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/08/425946/how-norway-helping-...
https://www.science.org/content/article/how-will-little-scan...
Sounds like Oregon started but hasn't gotten very far:
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/08/425946/how-norway-helping-...
No. Also, if you try, conservative voters will call you evil and/or sinful for being nice to people.
Is there any evidence that Nordic countries have higher rates of rehabilitation? The original assertions were based on terrible data: Norway has a recidivism rate of 20% because it only counts convictions in the following 2 years whereas the US counts any arrest in the following 5.
Scandinavian countries have prison populations in the thousands (1000) and the USA has a prison population in the millions (1000000). The USA has an incarceration rate 10 times that of any Scandinavian country. Recidivism rates might be similar, but I'm certain the fact that so many fewer end up in prison means something important about the USA
Nordic societies and people are very different than what you'll find in the USA. I'd be curious to see how a US-like prison system would fare in Sweden, with Swedish (native) prisoners. Probably quite well.
I imagine Norwegian-American recidivism rates are comparable to Norwegian rates.
Just like Swedish-American homelessness rates are comparable to homelessness rates in Sweden, etc.
Just like Swedish-American homelessness rates are comparable to homelessness rates in Sweden, etc.
> Just like Swedish-American homelessness rates are comparable to homelessness rates in Sweden
...are they? (Serious question.)
(Note: "There was no significant difference in rates of lifetime adult homelessness between foreign-born adults and native-born adults (1.0% vs 1.7%). Foreign-born participants were less likely to have various mental and substance-use disorders, less likely to receive welfare, and less likely to have any lifetime incarceration. The number of years foreign-born adults lived in the United States was significantly associated with risk for homelessness" [1])
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00333...
...are they? (Serious question.)
(Note: "There was no significant difference in rates of lifetime adult homelessness between foreign-born adults and native-born adults (1.0% vs 1.7%). Foreign-born participants were less likely to have various mental and substance-use disorders, less likely to receive welfare, and less likely to have any lifetime incarceration. The number of years foreign-born adults lived in the United States was significantly associated with risk for homelessness" [1])
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00333...
Yeah, I think the if at the beginning of your comment is doing some very heavy lifting.
I don’t think many people in the US care about rehab. They seem viscerally invested in the concept of a prison as a place to store/segregate violent people, but have no interest in either helping those people learn to live safely in society or to have any advantages that the poorest non-prisoner gets.
Before we can jump straight to pointing to successful prison labor programs, I think we need to figure out how to message to those voters that it matters how we treat prisoners.
I don’t think many people in the US care about rehab. They seem viscerally invested in the concept of a prison as a place to store/segregate violent people, but have no interest in either helping those people learn to live safely in society or to have any advantages that the poorest non-prisoner gets.
Before we can jump straight to pointing to successful prison labor programs, I think we need to figure out how to message to those voters that it matters how we treat prisoners.
> I don’t think many people in the US care about rehab
I think they exist quite widely among the population. Old, white republicans want more people in jail. Young, non-white democrats think we jail too many people.
50% of the country thinks we jail too many
s) https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/45975-what-americ...
I think they exist quite widely among the population. Old, white republicans want more people in jail. Young, non-white democrats think we jail too many people.
50% of the country thinks we jail too many
s) https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/45975-what-americ...
Not a fan of private prisons, but prisons (public or private) don't make money. They are a massive cost to the government. Incarceration is expensive (Google gives me a median of $65K per prisoner per year), and the percentage of prisoners that are able to earn more money through labor than the cost to lock them up is probably very low.
It might cost the government $65k to imprison someone, but that money isn’t disappearing. It’s going into the pockets of all the private businesses running the prisons who take a hefty profit
There seems to be a presumption that private prisons are widespread. And while not rare, they are only 8% of prisons. There is widespread use of profit-seeking vendors like food suppliers or phone companies though.
I only bring this up because it seems like the mental model most people have is that 50--90% of prisons are private - mainly because it gets discussed so much. But the problems with prisons by-and-large involve government administration, not for-profit companies running the amok (despite that also happening in a much smaller number of cases).
I only bring this up because it seems like the mental model most people have is that 50--90% of prisons are private - mainly because it gets discussed so much. But the problems with prisons by-and-large involve government administration, not for-profit companies running the amok (despite that also happening in a much smaller number of cases).
8% is 8% too much. They’re also currently housing 90% of detained immigrants. [1]
[1] https://truthout.org/articles/immigration-detention-has-beco...
[1] https://truthout.org/articles/immigration-detention-has-beco...
>private prisons
Are a red herring to distract from the real issue. The industrialist complex around prisons that do in fact profit from prisons. Like all gov contracts are also highly inefficient by design.
Are a red herring to distract from the real issue. The industrialist complex around prisons that do in fact profit from prisons. Like all gov contracts are also highly inefficient by design.
However, currently only 8.5% of people who are incarcerated are held in private facilities.
Despite the significant amount of economic and political power held by private prison corporations, it is imperative to understand that private prisons are not the only force at work in the Prison Industrial Complex.
Exclusive focus on private prison corporations as the lynchpin of the PIC ignores and overlooks the variety of other players and systems at work.
For example, there are thousands of companies and a wide range of contracts in both private and public prisons: it is a whole network of parties with vested interests.
In Are Prisons Obsolete, Angela Davis explains that,
“…even if private prison companies were prohibited – an unlikely prospect, indeed-the prison industrial complex and its many strategies for profit would remain relatively intact.
Private prisons are direct sources of profit for the companies that run them, but public prisons have become so thoroughly saturated with the profit-producing products and services of private corporations that the distinction is not as meaningful as one might suspect”
(Davis, 2003, 99-100).
8%, or 1 in 12, prisons being private isn't that encouraging when blowing up the statistic to the scale of a country. That's still thousands of facilities with perverse incentives.
But yes, the ones really profiting are those making deals to service the prison. Those who bring food, or repair the infrastructure, or custodial duties. A lot of seemingly unrelated industries have every reason to lobby in the background to focus on "hard on crime".
But yes, the ones really profiting are those making deals to service the prison. Those who bring food, or repair the infrastructure, or custodial duties. A lot of seemingly unrelated industries have every reason to lobby in the background to focus on "hard on crime".
> There is widespread use of profit-seeking vendors like food suppliers or phone companies though.
Yep. Everyone's heard about private prisons and their pet judges, but few know anything about Bob Barker or VitaPro. Their are deep and very murky waters here.
Yep. Everyone's heard about private prisons and their pet judges, but few know anything about Bob Barker or VitaPro. Their are deep and very murky waters here.
Money spent on a prison is unproductive for society, so it might as well have just disappeared as far as tax payers are concerned.
It's the same as paying someone to dig a hole, then paying someone to fill it back up. The money might as well have disappeared, as there's nothing to show for it (for the taxpayers that is - the hole digger is happy to have been paid)
It's the same as paying someone to dig a hole, then paying someone to fill it back up. The money might as well have disappeared, as there's nothing to show for it (for the taxpayers that is - the hole digger is happy to have been paid)
Have you considered the impact to the society if people destructive to it are not incarcerated?
my comment was in relation to the grandparent post's:
> cost the government $65k to imprison someone, but that money isn’t disappearing
which is wrong, because it _is_ disappearing.
Your argument is unrelated - it sure would be good if people didnt commit crimes for which incarceration is required, but it doesn't mean the cost has benefits. It simply has to be done; i would liken it to getting sick, and the healthcare costing money. That money, as far as you are concerned, disappeared, as it brought you no lasting benefit, even tho you must spend it.
> cost the government $65k to imprison someone, but that money isn’t disappearing
which is wrong, because it _is_ disappearing.
Your argument is unrelated - it sure would be good if people didnt commit crimes for which incarceration is required, but it doesn't mean the cost has benefits. It simply has to be done; i would liken it to getting sick, and the healthcare costing money. That money, as far as you are concerned, disappeared, as it brought you no lasting benefit, even tho you must spend it.
That a fair point. I was trying to express that the money isn’t vanishing, it’s going into someone’s pockets
Prisons cost the taxpayers quite a lot of money, yes. But private prisons make enormous profits from the burden you and I shoulder. More than a quarter billion dollars every year, goes into the pockets of private prison operators. Many consider the way that they extract these profits to be cruel and inhumane to those that are supposed to be under their care.
https://legaljournal.princeton.edu/the-economic-impact-of-pr...
https://legaljournal.princeton.edu/the-economic-impact-of-pr...
>Not a fan of private prisons, but prisons (public or private) don't make money.
private prisons make money for their corporations. Look up Wackenhut.
private prisons make money for their corporations. Look up Wackenhut.
Top private prison companies see profits amid administration's immigration crackdown
~ https://abcnews.go.com/US/top-private-prison-companies-profi...
Prison Contracts: Profits & Politics
~ https://abcnews.go.com/US/top-private-prison-companies-profi...
Prison Contracts: Profits & Politics
Two corporations, GEO Group, Inc. and CoreCivic, Inc. (CCA), manage over half of the private prison contracts in the US.
These contracts are extremely lucrative; in the 2017 fiscal year, GEO Group and CoreCivic earned a combined revenue of more than 4 billion dollars.
Corporations like GEO Group and CoreCivic are invested in mass incarceration because incarceration is profitable for them.
Such corporations ensure that correctional facilities are in demand through a variety of techniques, including minimum occupancy clauses and political lobbying efforts.
4.58% net profit margins don't seem like that much.
One of the overlooked purposes of imprisonment isn't revenge or rehabilitation, it's just letting the rest of us be away from that person for a while, removing them from society.
Yeah the conclusion from here [1] is that the biggest reason a prison can reduce crime is not because of rehabilitation or deterrence (even in places that try to do either) but because of incapacitation. It holds people in their prime age of doing crime (15-30) and spits them back out when they're too old to do those anymore. The obvious conclusion is that exile will have the same effect, but we don't have place to exile people to anymore.
1. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prison-and-crime-much-more-...
1. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prison-and-crime-much-more-...
Moon and Mars are coming soon.
What a criminal record does to your ability to get a job these days, as compared to the past is pretty harsh. Back in the 80's and prior, you could work at a smaller place that didn't have the capability to do background checks. Now, it's $20 or less and ANY employer can do it. You have to specifically find some place that has deliberately chosen to take the risk.
Compare to Australia, where the employer doesn't see detail. They file the background check, but only get a "yes" or "no", based on that specific job and past offenses (if any).
Compare to Australia, where the employer doesn't see detail. They file the background check, but only get a "yes" or "no", based on that specific job and past offenses (if any).
If you read the article, you'll notice what a joke the corporate world is. They are hiring someone sitting in prison, they did the interview through video in prison. His address is a prison, but....
"He figured Thorpe might have trouble clearing the company's background check and he says he prepared himself for that. But since it only searches back seven years and since Thorpe has been in prison for more than a decade, "He is actually our cleanest background check," Costa says."
"He doesn't have a parking ticket." What does a parking ticket, let alone a criminal conviction have to do with programming?
Let's just go ahead and get to the exploitation, the corporate scum offered him minimum wage and are taking advantage of his situation.
"He figured Thorpe might have trouble clearing the company's background check and he says he prepared himself for that. But since it only searches back seven years and since Thorpe has been in prison for more than a decade, "He is actually our cleanest background check," Costa says."
"He doesn't have a parking ticket." What does a parking ticket, let alone a criminal conviction have to do with programming?
Let's just go ahead and get to the exploitation, the corporate scum offered him minimum wage and are taking advantage of his situation.
vovavili(1)
>Dehumanization seems to be the trend that the US is leading on right now.
Criminals have to want to stop doing crime before they can be rehabilitated.
Criminals have to want to stop doing crime before they can be rehabilitated.
> Criminals have to want to stop doing crime before they can be rehabilitated
This is literally what rehabiliation entails. Convincing criminals that they have better options than crime.
It doesn't work for everyone. There are absolutely bad people who will just violate social contracts, or who can't control their rage turning into violence. Those people need to be incapacitated. But for the vast majority of criminals, particularly non-violent criminals, crime is an economic cost-benefit exercise.
This is literally what rehabiliation entails. Convincing criminals that they have better options than crime.
It doesn't work for everyone. There are absolutely bad people who will just violate social contracts, or who can't control their rage turning into violence. Those people need to be incapacitated. But for the vast majority of criminals, particularly non-violent criminals, crime is an economic cost-benefit exercise.
On top of that: the US has ~5% of the world's population but ~25% of the world's prisoners. So when we talk about "criminals", most of the people we're referring to are only incarcerated because they're subject to the US carceral system. If they lived in any other country, they'd considered upstanding citizens.
Les Mis is a great treatment of exactly this, even if fictional. It takes more than justice to reform the soul. It takes making room by society to forgive the repentant. We call this mercy, and it is the higher ideal.
If it's too much for society to forgive someone who has done their time, the very least society could do is to stop actively fighting their rehabilitation.
Whenever a read a story about someone who's been to prison and then ends up a solid, productive member of society, I can't help but think: "This person must have extraordinary grit and determination!" Because when a criminal gets out of prison, the entire system and the entire society is set up to try to oppose his rehabilitation and get him back into prison. Overcoming this active hostility must take a remarkable person.
Whenever a read a story about someone who's been to prison and then ends up a solid, productive member of society, I can't help but think: "This person must have extraordinary grit and determination!" Because when a criminal gets out of prison, the entire system and the entire society is set up to try to oppose his rehabilitation and get him back into prison. Overcoming this active hostility must take a remarkable person.
> "This person must have extraordinary grit and determination!" Because when a criminal gets out of prison, the entire system and the entire society is set up to try to oppose his rehabilitation and get him back into prison. Overcoming this active hostility must take a remarkable person.
This is precisely the story of Les Misérables - that remarkable person being Jean Valjean.
This is precisely the story of Les Misérables - that remarkable person being Jean Valjean.
This is an incredibly naive take and doesn't address what you quoted in your comment. We should not dehumanize anyone - criminal or otherwise.
This is the result of the dehumanization effort. It highlights OPs point in attempting to refute it
That's not entirely fair - there are all walks of life in those prisons. Some are undoubtedly beyond help, but the ones we can actually rehabilitate, or at least give meaningful work to, are not an opportunity worth overlooking.
I'm not justifying the crimes and I think people should pay for the consequences of their actions, but I don't think it's that simple.
I think some people just haven't been exposed to the benefits of taking a path to life that doesn't involve crime. Some people also need to be convinced that there are viable alternatives to crime. And as someone else said, society needs to give them the chance to redeem themselves and pursue those alternate paths.
I think some people just haven't been exposed to the benefits of taking a path to life that doesn't involve crime. Some people also need to be convinced that there are viable alternatives to crime. And as someone else said, society needs to give them the chance to redeem themselves and pursue those alternate paths.
> Costa says he was also surprised to learn that Thorpe was eligible for remote work while he was in prison. He hired him in June. He figured Thorpe might have trouble clearing the company's background check and he says he prepared himself for that. But since it only searches back seven years and since Thorpe has been in prison for more than a decade, "He is actually our cleanest background check," Costa says.
This just makes me feel like the entire modern process of matching workers to employers is a kafkaesque hell that has negative value.
The boss doesn’t even care that the guy obviously violates the intention of his companies process. Stay in jail long enough and you’ll pass one of our arbitrary steps!
This just makes me feel like the entire modern process of matching workers to employers is a kafkaesque hell that has negative value.
The boss doesn’t even care that the guy obviously violates the intention of his companies process. Stay in jail long enough and you’ll pass one of our arbitrary steps!
> boss doesn’t even care that the guy obviously violates the intention of his companies process
What's the intent of the process?
I remember hiring a few years ago, where a deep background check uncovered an assault charge on a candidate I liked. The charges had been dropped. But they were violent in nature, and this spooked my team.
Fortunately, our GC once did family law. Between me pointing out this was a remote position and our GC showing that the facts of the case looked incredibly like domestic dispute in the midst of divorce, we wound up hiring her. And she was great!
What's the intent of the process?
I remember hiring a few years ago, where a deep background check uncovered an assault charge on a candidate I liked. The charges had been dropped. But they were violent in nature, and this spooked my team.
Fortunately, our GC once did family law. Between me pointing out this was a remote position and our GC showing that the facts of the case looked incredibly like domestic dispute in the midst of divorce, we wound up hiring her. And she was great!
>the facts of the case looked incredibly like domestic dispute in the midst of divorce,
>we wound up hiring her. And she was great!
Did you try firing her just to be sure?
Within the default biases of the american law enforcement and court systems an assault charge on a woman in divorce dropped usually means almost the opposite of assault charges on a man in divorce being dropped.
>we wound up hiring her. And she was great!
Did you try firing her just to be sure?
Within the default biases of the american law enforcement and court systems an assault charge on a woman in divorce dropped usually means almost the opposite of assault charges on a man in divorce being dropped.
The crazy part to me is that people are in prison at all for crimes don't even rise to the level that employers consider a disqualifier.
Heck, we might as well just limit jail sentences to 7 years! That will solve a fuck ton of problems, right guys?
Maybe it's a statute of limitations thing. It sounds like his crimes were non-violent.
> Preston Thorpe is only 32, but he says he's already landed his dream job as a senior software engineer and bought a modest house with his six-figure salary. It was all accomplished by putting in long days from his cell at the Mountain View Correctional Center in Charleston.
Gives new meaning to working in Mountain View.
Gives new meaning to working in Mountain View.
This reminded me of a more extreme version of the primeagen’s story, which made me wonder if there are any prisoners running coding youtube channels.
So I searched and THEN I found the blog of the inmate from the article! https://pthorpe92.dev/
So I searched and THEN I found the blog of the inmate from the article! https://pthorpe92.dev/
Remember when Pennsylvania judges took kickbacks to send teenagers to for-profit detention centers? They ruined thousands of people's entire lives, but hey they made a quick buck!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
How many others are profiting from keeping prison populations topped up? Perverse incentives, ensuring the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, with only the People's Republic of China rivalling it for prison population. Make slavery legal again with this one weird trick called the 13th amendment's "except as punishment for a crime"
I am OK with prisoners being rehabilitated, this includes them working. I am not OK with their jailers profiting. Nor am I OK with employers profiting by having unfair power over pay and conditions they wouldn't have with free citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
How many others are profiting from keeping prison populations topped up? Perverse incentives, ensuring the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, with only the People's Republic of China rivalling it for prison population. Make slavery legal again with this one weird trick called the 13th amendment's "except as punishment for a crime"
I am OK with prisoners being rehabilitated, this includes them working. I am not OK with their jailers profiting. Nor am I OK with employers profiting by having unfair power over pay and conditions they wouldn't have with free citizens.
> Remember when Pennsylvania judges took kickbacks to send teenagers to for-profit detention centers? They ruined thousands of people's entire lives, but hey they made a quick buck!
And one of the judges [0] in the “kids for cash” scandal had the remainder of his federal sentence commuted by President Biden before he left office.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Conahan
And one of the judges [0] in the “kids for cash” scandal had the remainder of his federal sentence commuted by President Biden before he left office.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Conahan
Dang, TIL. Not that it really excuses it, but for more information: that convict was one of many given clemency who were already on home release due to COVID and had behaved well. Seems he had about 2 years left.
It wasn't a quick buck, it was a slow and methodical many year effort of corruption. Everyone should sue that judge for everything he's worth and send him to jail for the rest of his life.
[deleted]
For profit prisons are the worst, it should be a state responsibility not a for profit company.
Especially with all the race issues in imprisonment.
Especially with all the race issues in imprisonment.
All prisons in Maine are state or federally operated, none are private or operated for profit.
>Wages are garnished for child support, victim restitution and other fees. And for those who earn above a certain amount, 10% goes to the Department of Corrections for room and board.
So they take a cut of your pay. Totally not profit? They deserve it? Why not 20% why not 95%.
So they take a cut of your pay. Totally not profit? They deserve it? Why not 20% why not 95%.
This criticism 'proves too much', as the same critique can be made of taxes, which doesn't seem like your intent, unless you believe that prisoners are just the 'tip of the iceberg' when it comes to state-slavery.
This is not rehabilitation. Its a politics long con to get free state money. Anytime someone has no rights and is getting money it goes to their captors. There is no exception. This guy in the link should be on probation at the very least.
Also this headline is yellow AF. "Prisoners are thriving" oh yeah? "THRIVING" In f-ing prison? I bet if you asked them 100% would rather not be doing their full time job in prison. I'd stake my life on it in fact.
Also this headline is yellow AF. "Prisoners are thriving" oh yeah? "THRIVING" In f-ing prison? I bet if you asked them 100% would rather not be doing their full time job in prison. I'd stake my life on it in fact.
>This is not rehabilitation. Its a politics long con to get free state money.
1) it can be both
2) I don't see the economic value here. If a prisoner software engineer can make 80k and can instead make 200k if they weren't in prison, what would make the state more? the garnished wages on a prisoner that need to partially go into maintaining the prison, or the taxes on the free person who's paying their own bills? (this isn't rhetorical, I think it's closer than what first blush tells us).
> "Prisoners are thriving" oh yeah? "THRIVING" In f-ing prison?]
Given the context of the article, I take "thriving" as in "being rehabilitated". Which should be the goal of the justice system, but it's been clear that is almost never is the result.
If there's anyone wrongfully imprisoned or otherwise having the book thrown at them, that's a different matter.
1) it can be both
2) I don't see the economic value here. If a prisoner software engineer can make 80k and can instead make 200k if they weren't in prison, what would make the state more? the garnished wages on a prisoner that need to partially go into maintaining the prison, or the taxes on the free person who's paying their own bills? (this isn't rhetorical, I think it's closer than what first blush tells us).
> "Prisoners are thriving" oh yeah? "THRIVING" In f-ing prison?]
Given the context of the article, I take "thriving" as in "being rehabilitated". Which should be the goal of the justice system, but it's been clear that is almost never is the result.
If there's anyone wrongfully imprisoned or otherwise having the book thrown at them, that's a different matter.
The choice is make 90% of their pay only if they make a lot, setting up a career that might be doomed to a life of crime, or do nothing all day in a cell.
They also have to volunteer, what are you even saying
They also have to volunteer, what are you even saying
[deleted]
[deleted]
From what I understand, Maine has no private prisons; why are you bringing them up in this topic?
I interpreted it as a potential explainer for why this sort of result is unlikely to spread broadly.
Do you have knowledge of, eg of New Hampshire (which is mentioned as a counter example in the article?)
Do you have knowledge of, eg of New Hampshire (which is mentioned as a counter example in the article?)
I think NH doesn't have any private prisons either, and hasn't since 2000. Private prisons only have about 10% of the total prison population anyway.
https://www.criminon.org/where-we-work/united-states/new-ham...
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-states-use-private-pr...
https://www.criminon.org/where-we-work/united-states/new-ham...
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-states-use-private-pr...
This program sounds great and I think we should incentivize it. Unfortunately, I think it requires a constitutional amendment to work. We can’t rely on well meaning administrators to overlook the slave labor exemption for criminal punishment; these things will be exploited.
I guess with knowledge work there is some protection because it’s hard to force. Though, it would be desirable to extend such programs into other forms of work.
I guess with knowledge work there is some protection because it’s hard to force. Though, it would be desirable to extend such programs into other forms of work.
This... seems like it has the makings of a really great idea. So often prisoners are repeat offenders because they have no skills, no support system after getting out of prison so they revert to their old ways. Imagine already having a job and a large nest egg in your savings account because you got a remote job in prison. Or imagine going to prison as an 18-year-old, learning some skills through a prison educational system, and then getting a remote job and actually start contributing back to society. I'm not sure about Maine's implementation specifically, but something about this idea resonates strongly with me.
Yeah, I guess it's a good idea given the state of our current system. But it seems like prisoners fall into two basic categories - 1. people who very few employers would hire for remote work due to their criminal history. 2. people who really shouldn't be in prison at all.
Where do you get that idea? The article paints a pleasantly different picture:
> "We had 87 assaults on staff in 2017. Last year, we had seven assaults on staff [...] the officers that go to work everyday and don't feel like their life is at risk."
> "We had 87 assaults on staff in 2017. Last year, we had seven assaults on staff [...] the officers that go to work everyday and don't feel like their life is at risk."
How is that pleasant? Y'all disgust me. Free them.
Sorry, I think we may be misaligned - such a significant decrease in violence that is almost inherent to such a dark system is something worth noting.
I only highlighted that decrease as counter to the false dichotomy of the parent - clearly, an improvement in our prison practices can benefit not only incarcerated people, but the wellbeing of the staff and surrounding community.
I only highlighted that decrease as counter to the false dichotomy of the parent - clearly, an improvement in our prison practices can benefit not only incarcerated people, but the wellbeing of the staff and surrounding community.
That would be fantastic, but if you know literally anything about America, you'd know that that's not something in our power to effect. Especially right now.
Reforms like this, however, are much more realistic.
Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
Reforms like this, however, are much more realistic.
Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
> 1. people who very few employers would hire for remote work due to their criminal history.
Putting aside the widespread reflexive discrimination against "criminals", I would think that most people in prison who someone might think twice about hiring due to their criminal history would get a second look if it was for a remote job.
Someone working remotely can't rob or murder you, nor can they try to sell you drugs without a much more elaborate setup.
Seems to me the only kinds of people in prison that most employers might justly hesitate to hire for a remote job are white-collar criminals.
Putting aside the widespread reflexive discrimination against "criminals", I would think that most people in prison who someone might think twice about hiring due to their criminal history would get a second look if it was for a remote job.
Someone working remotely can't rob or murder you, nor can they try to sell you drugs without a much more elaborate setup.
Seems to me the only kinds of people in prison that most employers might justly hesitate to hire for a remote job are white-collar criminals.
They can still do real damage. When hiring criminals be prepared for them to act like criminals.
https://www.corrections1.com/investigations/ga-inmate-accuse...
https://www.wltx.com/article/news/crime/south-carolina-inmat...
https://www.corrections1.com/investigations/ga-inmate-accuse...
https://www.wltx.com/article/news/crime/south-carolina-inmat...
...and those are both, exactly as I said, white-collar criminals.
The kinds of folks I've worked with who have served time vary from place to place, but I'll give you a good rundown of some of the flavors I worked with when I did daylabor work in college and high school...
* People charged with something stupid (e.g. shoplifting) that turned into a larger problem (e.g. crossing state lines) which became an even larger problem (e.g. nonviolent, passive drug charges). One guy I worked with had lived on one side of the river in St. Lois but worked on the other side. Walmart decided that he'd "shoplifted" a $2 bottle of soda, legally he fled the state by going home, and his kid had hid a gram of weed in the shoebox by the door that nobody opened except of course the cops that flooded the house. He served 10 years after a plea deal that sunk his kid into juvie for 5 years.
* People who "did a crime" to prevent a crime. Another person I worked with shot his son 5 times in the chest after his son attempted to murder the wife. Because the only testimony they had was an asian woman who didn't speak great english and the court denied an interpreter for her native language (laoatian) because she "speaks good enough english", her description of the events was murky (having been asleep) and so he landed murder charges and a stint in prison.
* People who got racism'd into prison: Same work as the previous, the older latino guy in this group was framed for the death of a woman he spent the evening with; he had left after they hooked up and she ended up falling off the balcony of her apartment later on, but because time of death is like, +/- a few hours when it snows on top of you, he was the last one to see her. He spent 4 years in prison before he was released on a mistrial.
* Drug users of the nonviolent variety. Nose candy, heroin, weed, usually white collar or upper blue collar. Several folks like this, all who just wanted their past to be shoveled behind them.
* People who legitimately did a crime, did the time, and now they're out: Plenty of situations where legit crimes happened... Theft, assault, even a case of money laundering on occasion. They went in, did their time, and came out, and day labor was the one thing that didn't ask too many questions and paid regularly.
A fair number had degrees -- from associates and bachelor's degrees to even a PhD who was nailed for what the state called a "gambling ring" (some informal betting around the office that ended up snowballing into a massive pot). many of them could do remote work of some kind, be it customer support roles or tech work. The MBA that did nose candy? He stayed on the board of directors for a local nonprofit _while serving_ and would relay his comments through his lawyer, being entirely upfront as to why he was incarcerated, then ended up doing accounting for the day labor company after a while.
All this to say: our system is fucked up and needs rehabilitation systems for the murky area between those two extremes.
* People charged with something stupid (e.g. shoplifting) that turned into a larger problem (e.g. crossing state lines) which became an even larger problem (e.g. nonviolent, passive drug charges). One guy I worked with had lived on one side of the river in St. Lois but worked on the other side. Walmart decided that he'd "shoplifted" a $2 bottle of soda, legally he fled the state by going home, and his kid had hid a gram of weed in the shoebox by the door that nobody opened except of course the cops that flooded the house. He served 10 years after a plea deal that sunk his kid into juvie for 5 years.
* People who "did a crime" to prevent a crime. Another person I worked with shot his son 5 times in the chest after his son attempted to murder the wife. Because the only testimony they had was an asian woman who didn't speak great english and the court denied an interpreter for her native language (laoatian) because she "speaks good enough english", her description of the events was murky (having been asleep) and so he landed murder charges and a stint in prison.
* People who got racism'd into prison: Same work as the previous, the older latino guy in this group was framed for the death of a woman he spent the evening with; he had left after they hooked up and she ended up falling off the balcony of her apartment later on, but because time of death is like, +/- a few hours when it snows on top of you, he was the last one to see her. He spent 4 years in prison before he was released on a mistrial.
* Drug users of the nonviolent variety. Nose candy, heroin, weed, usually white collar or upper blue collar. Several folks like this, all who just wanted their past to be shoveled behind them.
* People who legitimately did a crime, did the time, and now they're out: Plenty of situations where legit crimes happened... Theft, assault, even a case of money laundering on occasion. They went in, did their time, and came out, and day labor was the one thing that didn't ask too many questions and paid regularly.
A fair number had degrees -- from associates and bachelor's degrees to even a PhD who was nailed for what the state called a "gambling ring" (some informal betting around the office that ended up snowballing into a massive pot). many of them could do remote work of some kind, be it customer support roles or tech work. The MBA that did nose candy? He stayed on the board of directors for a local nonprofit _while serving_ and would relay his comments through his lawyer, being entirely upfront as to why he was incarcerated, then ended up doing accounting for the day labor company after a while.
All this to say: our system is fucked up and needs rehabilitation systems for the murky area between those two extremes.
When I visited a local prison through the https://www.douglassproject.org/ I had this exact thought: why not allow remote work? I'm glad it is being done somewhere! I hope it becomes more commonplace.
Wow, that’s fantastic. I bet recidivism rates plummet when the cons exit after having a good job.
[deleted]
This is still slavery. Not chattel slavery, but the same thing that came up in reconstruction where minorities and poor whites become indentured servants
Meanwhile on the outside…
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45340442
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45340442
Apparently software eats everything including recidivism; It's the antithesis of "crime doesn't pay"
I always wonder why didn’t we ever do something like this with something like Amazon Mechanical Turk? Use prisoners for small frequent human cognition tasks. I guess with AI that ship has sailed though…
Perhaps high trust prisoners could be used for things like controlling delivery bots. Or maybe for content moderation!
Perhaps high trust prisoners could be used for things like controlling delivery bots. Or maybe for content moderation!
A wild Glove80 appears
Oh cool so all I have to do in order to keep my job fully remote in the future is go to jail.
Awesome. So so so awesome
Awesome. So so so awesome
[deleted]
Wow. Just wow. The US really is on a trajectory back towards slavery between this and re-legalizing child labor in some states.
This stuff truly is a disturbing view of the future of the US.
>earn above a certain amount, 10% goes to the Department of Corrections for room and board
Yep. There it is. Sounds nice now right? Until in 5 years they decide, well it really needs to be 20%. Then it 5 more years. Well they are in prison so 30% should be resonable. Then as tax deficits grow .....weeeellllll maybe 70%..... Then it will be well prisoners shouldn't really be getting rich in prison so we take 100% but when they get out they will still have that job to fall back on. Just wait and see.
To be clear I'm not against giving people a chance to reform. This is not that. If a person is reformed enough or behaved enough at a chance for reform then they should be on probation at worst. Not propping up a industrial prison complex for nonviolent crimes like 20+ year sentence selling drugs.
This stuff truly is a disturbing view of the future of the US.
>earn above a certain amount, 10% goes to the Department of Corrections for room and board
Yep. There it is. Sounds nice now right? Until in 5 years they decide, well it really needs to be 20%. Then it 5 more years. Well they are in prison so 30% should be resonable. Then as tax deficits grow .....weeeellllll maybe 70%..... Then it will be well prisoners shouldn't really be getting rich in prison so we take 100% but when they get out they will still have that job to fall back on. Just wait and see.
To be clear I'm not against giving people a chance to reform. This is not that. If a person is reformed enough or behaved enough at a chance for reform then they should be on probation at worst. Not propping up a industrial prison complex for nonviolent crimes like 20+ year sentence selling drugs.
"trajectory back towards"?
Simpler explanation: "slavery" never ended, it's just called something else now
Simpler explanation: "slavery" never ended, it's just called something else now
There was state run prison slavery before the institution of chattel slavery in North America, there was state slavery after it. Why wouldn't there be? The government always exempts itself from laws of that sort.
What was gross margin per average (because the cook picks no cotton) of your typical plantation?
I'd bet it's a whole lot less than the federal .gov's margin on someone in one of the 20+% brackets. State .govs are probably all over the place.
Hard to account for because the .gov "doesn't show a profit" in the same way that "we're totally a nonprofit <wink>" hospitals don't but should be a doable calculation.
What was gross margin per average (because the cook picks no cotton) of your typical plantation?
I'd bet it's a whole lot less than the federal .gov's margin on someone in one of the 20+% brackets. State .govs are probably all over the place.
Hard to account for because the .gov "doesn't show a profit" in the same way that "we're totally a nonprofit <wink>" hospitals don't but should be a doable calculation.
I know. You know. Tried to avoid the downvotes but to no avail lol. HN is a bit naive.
well maybe don't rape people. I get that the TV camera is able to visit the jail and tell a story and make people cry. But maybe they should witness the crime first hand before they put on the story.
What are you on about? The guy the article focuses on is in jail 15-30y for "intent" to distribute opioids.
Also "intent" is cop for we didn't like your face.
Also "intent" is cop for we didn't like your face.
> senior software engineer
There we go again, and then people wonder why they can't find engineering jobs anymore, or low wage/no job security if any, when anyone and everyone can be an "engineer" when they get bored and have some time on their hands. I still don't understand why there is no collective engineering committee and effort to gatekeep the profession like literally all other professions out there, because companies will NEVER initiate that since it's in their interest to keep it as is. Why would someone spend time and money to become an engineer when he or she is competing with the whole world and prisoners now? The reward is just not worth the effort anymore, this is what will kill engineering innovation on the long term for short term gains.
There we go again, and then people wonder why they can't find engineering jobs anymore, or low wage/no job security if any, when anyone and everyone can be an "engineer" when they get bored and have some time on their hands. I still don't understand why there is no collective engineering committee and effort to gatekeep the profession like literally all other professions out there, because companies will NEVER initiate that since it's in their interest to keep it as is. Why would someone spend time and money to become an engineer when he or she is competing with the whole world and prisoners now? The reward is just not worth the effort anymore, this is what will kill engineering innovation on the long term for short term gains.
A title isn't what causes engineering innovations, nor is gatekeeping a source of them (just the opposite really). So how would that kill engineering innovations long-term?
> how would that kill engineering innovations long-term?
Bright brains are no longer interested in investing time and money to become engineers when the reward isn't worth it anymore, even immigrants by the way. They are okay with the low wages until they get permanent residency or citizenship, then after that they would need higher wages to simply live a comfortable life with family and such, but they won't even have that, and they get to taste the outcome they caused even if they are not realizing it.
Bright brains are no longer interested in investing time and money to become engineers when the reward isn't worth it anymore, even immigrants by the way. They are okay with the low wages until they get permanent residency or citizenship, then after that they would need higher wages to simply live a comfortable life with family and such, but they won't even have that, and they get to taste the outcome they caused even if they are not realizing it.
blockchain gang?
As long as they're paid fair rates i think it should be allowed.
and my definition of a fair rate for them is what people outside the prison are paid, assuming they're paid a fair rate of course.
As long as they're paid fair rates i think it should be allowed.
and my definition of a fair rate for them is what people outside the prison are paid, assuming they're paid a fair rate of course.
[deleted]
Because remote job for corporation is a form of prison..
So they work remote jobs and keep the money while tax payers foot the bill for their housing, food, medical, and utilities? Is that right?
Why aren't we all doing this?
Why aren't we all doing this?
Give it a shot and report back. You could try this tactic:
"Lopez admitted that she waited in front of the county jail for hours, intent on assaulting an officer. She reportedly explained that her goal was to get arrested and be put in jail so she would be forced to stop smoking cigarettes."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/calif-woman-allegedly-slaps-cop...
"Lopez admitted that she waited in front of the county jail for hours, intent on assaulting an officer. She reportedly explained that her goal was to get arrested and be put in jail so she would be forced to stop smoking cigarettes."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/calif-woman-allegedly-slaps-cop...
Remote slavery?
I like the wording here:
> is a certified recovery coach, a scholar and a teaching assistant who's serving a 40-year sentence for the murder of her husband.
I feel like "husband murderer" probably ought to come first in your little list of titles there.
This system is a joke. If someone's committed a real crime (with a victim), and you allow this, you're forgetting prison is supposed to be a punishment.
I guess it'd be fair if the government kept half of what they make though.... Oh wait...
> is a certified recovery coach, a scholar and a teaching assistant who's serving a 40-year sentence for the murder of her husband.
I feel like "husband murderer" probably ought to come first in your little list of titles there.
This system is a joke. If someone's committed a real crime (with a victim), and you allow this, you're forgetting prison is supposed to be a punishment.
I guess it'd be fair if the government kept half of what they make though.... Oh wait...
On the one hand, prisoners being coerced to work is payment for their crimes. On the other hand, that job would have gone to someone else at market rates. This kind of thing drags down the market rates.
We really need to get rid of the exception in the 13th amendment.
We really need to get rid of the exception in the 13th amendment.
The number of prisoners who are capable of this type of work are minuscule and unlikely to affect wages at large.
Ah, but the number of people who are capable of this type of work who could be imprisoned is quite large!
It's rather difficult to do enough bad things to get a lengthy prison sentence these days. Usually requires a violent offense in the context of significant priors.
If you're interested in doing hard federal time, I would suggest you consider interstate trafficking of distribution quantities of drugs.
If you're interested in doing hard federal time, I would suggest you consider interstate trafficking of distribution quantities of drugs.
>It's rather difficult to do enough bad things to get a lengthy prison sentence these days
If you're white, maybe. There's still stories of some states having the book thrown at recreational drug usage.
If you're white, maybe. There's still stories of some states having the book thrown at recreational drug usage.
At the state level, by far the most common reason for long sentences are violent offenses. At the federal level it is more often trafficking at distribution scale.
There are always stories, but the majority are the above. If you have a state in mind we can look at the data together.
There are always stories, but the majority are the above. If you have a state in mind we can look at the data together.
> It's rather difficult to do enough bad things to get a lengthy prison sentence these days.
...there are two million people in prison. Several million more in various stages of the carceral cycle who be be easily subbed in when more labor is required.
Slavery of this variety is alive and well.
...there are two million people in prison. Several million more in various stages of the carceral cycle who be be easily subbed in when more labor is required.
Slavery of this variety is alive and well.
The obvious solution to this are harder sentences so you can imprison more people that are capable of this kind of work
[deleted]
The loss of rights should be the payment for their crimes. Having volunteer job opportunities for reform or having them maintain their own facilities is the max that should be mandated.
It’s just slavery with all the perverse incentives that come with it, and I think we’d all be better off if this was a lever that no one in society had access to pull on
It’s just slavery with all the perverse incentives that come with it, and I think we’d all be better off if this was a lever that no one in society had access to pull on
Sounds nice, until you're robbed, they catch and prosecute the guy successfully, and then you're unable to be made whole again because the criminal doesn't have any money to pay you back.
What then? If they're not forced to produce something of value to give to you, then how can you ever be made whole again? Does the state pay? If so, why do taxpayers who didn't commit a crime foot the bill? If it's insurance, then why do non-criminals paying insurance premiums foot the bill?
If there's nothing linking the action (_theft_) to the needed outcome (_restitution_), then there's this unmoored loop of perverse incentives wherein some folks can continue to commit crimes with very limited consequences.
Doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to work while in prison. But surely for any and all crimes that have a clearly defined dollar amount, shouldn't that criminal be forced to pay that amount back? Garnishing future wages can be circumvented (_just don't get a real job when you get out, keep stealing things to support yourself_). And even at best, it's very much _delayed_ restitution. Justice delayed is justice denied.
What then? If they're not forced to produce something of value to give to you, then how can you ever be made whole again? Does the state pay? If so, why do taxpayers who didn't commit a crime foot the bill? If it's insurance, then why do non-criminals paying insurance premiums foot the bill?
If there's nothing linking the action (_theft_) to the needed outcome (_restitution_), then there's this unmoored loop of perverse incentives wherein some folks can continue to commit crimes with very limited consequences.
Doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to work while in prison. But surely for any and all crimes that have a clearly defined dollar amount, shouldn't that criminal be forced to pay that amount back? Garnishing future wages can be circumvented (_just don't get a real job when you get out, keep stealing things to support yourself_). And even at best, it's very much _delayed_ restitution. Justice delayed is justice denied.
> What then? If they're not forced to produce something of value to give to you, then how can you ever be made whole again?
To be clear, in the present day, when a prisoner works, how much money do you think they make, and who do you think keeps the value produced?
To be clear, in the present day, when a prisoner works, how much money do you think they make, and who do you think keeps the value produced?
The article says the software developer is making a six-figure salary and the prison system withholds 10%.
The prisoner in the article is so unusual someone wrote an article about them and it made headlines on a tech forum.
The parent thread we're discussing is broadly about prisoner work in the US. So we should be considering the mean and median values, not the one guy making 4 orders of magnitude more than everyone else.
The parent thread we're discussing is broadly about prisoner work in the US. So we should be considering the mean and median values, not the one guy making 4 orders of magnitude more than everyone else.
>If they're not forced to produce something of value to give to you, then how can you ever be made whole again? Does the state pay? If so, why do taxpayers who didn't commit a crime foot the bill? If it's insurance, then why do non-criminals paying insurance premiums foot the bill?
Are any of these solutions that unreasonable when you consider that the state/taxpayers are already footing the bill to keep prisoners incarcerated?
Are any of these solutions that unreasonable when you consider that the state/taxpayers are already footing the bill to keep prisoners incarcerated?
> Sounds nice, until you're robbed, they catch and prosecute the guy successfully, and then you're unable to be made whole again because the criminal doesn't have any money to pay you back.
How do they pay you back when employers run background checks (not to mention housing)?
How do they pay you back when employers run background checks (not to mention housing)?
> then how can you ever be made whole again?
by your insurance company.
Heck, this doesn't even require them to catch the perp.
by your insurance company.
Heck, this doesn't even require them to catch the perp.
> If there's nothing linking the action (_theft_) to the needed outcome (_restitution_), then there's this unmoored loop of perverse incentives wherein some folks can continue to commit crimes with very limited consequences.
>you're unable to be made whole again because the criminal doesn't have any money to pay you back.
What does that have to do with rehabilitation? That person can go to prison, realize the errors of their ways, and have a healthy life.I don't have to like nor forgive them. I'm not being "made whole again" no matter how long you lock them up.
> If they're not forced to produce something of value to give to you, then how can you ever be made whole again?
1) you generally don't get something "produced of value", unless suffering is a currency now. Probably is in 2025
2) insurance. not everything can be given back, but many material goods can be compensated.
>If it's insurance, then why do non-criminals paying insurance premiums foot the bill?
because that's how insurance works, in spirit. You're all pooling together a fund so that you help out some other person when they need it. The instigator is often not the one footing the bill to begin with. Shaking down a criminal with no money is as useful as yelling at a forest fire as it burns your place down.
>Doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to work while in prison. But surely for any and all crimes that have a clearly defined dollar amount, shouldn't that criminal be forced to pay that amount back?
if they have it, sure. As is, this isn't the model of the "justice" system, though. You're not getting paid back for anyone put behind bars.
What does that have to do with rehabilitation? That person can go to prison, realize the errors of their ways, and have a healthy life.I don't have to like nor forgive them. I'm not being "made whole again" no matter how long you lock them up.
> If they're not forced to produce something of value to give to you, then how can you ever be made whole again?
1) you generally don't get something "produced of value", unless suffering is a currency now. Probably is in 2025
2) insurance. not everything can be given back, but many material goods can be compensated.
>If it's insurance, then why do non-criminals paying insurance premiums foot the bill?
because that's how insurance works, in spirit. You're all pooling together a fund so that you help out some other person when they need it. The instigator is often not the one footing the bill to begin with. Shaking down a criminal with no money is as useful as yelling at a forest fire as it burns your place down.
>Doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to work while in prison. But surely for any and all crimes that have a clearly defined dollar amount, shouldn't that criminal be forced to pay that amount back?
if they have it, sure. As is, this isn't the model of the "justice" system, though. You're not getting paid back for anyone put behind bars.
> If there's nothing linking the action (_theft_) to the needed outcome (_restitution_), then there's this unmoored loop of perverse incentives wherein some folks can continue to commit crimes with very limited consequences.
>prisoners being coerced to work is payment for their crimes. On the other hand, that job would have gone to someone else at market rates. This kind of thing drags down the market rates.
That's a different problem, for different inmates -- the inmates covered in this story are paid market rates. It mentions the software developer has a six-figure salary.
That's a different problem, for different inmates -- the inmates covered in this story are paid market rates. It mentions the software developer has a six-figure salary.
As intended, companies will do everything to lower wages and have borderline slaves work for them, either through immigrants, hiring mostly co-op workers, and now prisoners, and a lot of people are okay with it for some reason, so gullible! The "engineer" job in 2025 is like sewing in a prison a couple of decades ago, crazy.
It was not. Working in prisons started as part of rehabilitation, so the prisoners could learn life skills to survive. Now it devolved to power tripping and control.
>This kind of thing drags down the market rates.
Why would the prison / prisoner charge below market rates for their labor?
Why would the prison / prisoner charge below market rates for their labor?
Because it's free money for them either way, and they can undercut the competition, even minimum wage workers, due to the 13th amendment excluding prisoners.
The prisoner doesn't really get too much choice in the matter other than taking/rejecting the offer.
The prisoner doesn't really get too much choice in the matter other than taking/rejecting the offer.
The prison could, for grift reasons. They can undercut competition because their costs are lower. If a union, or even a market-rate shop needs to pay, say, $20-hour for labor, and the prison can pay $1-hour (or day) they can charge much less, and then pocket the difference. Their advantage isn't a higher quality product just a cheaper one.
Most jobs in prisons and jails pay less than $1/day, last I heard, maybe they got the inflation adjustment the rest of missed though.
Why not charge the same and pocket a larger difference?
Why would someone buy services from a prison vs an established company. Presumably the quality would be worse and there is a potential risk to reputation. The answer would be because the prison is substantially cheaper due to not needing to abide by labor laws. There are plenty of services where I'd be willing for forgo (some) quality for significant costs decreases.
elzbardico(2)
We can also be concerned about the incentives for prison labor - for profit prisons and all the many service providers that get paid a mint. Phone calls in many prisons are like $10. Labor gangs and the such. It’s just horrible how badly we treat people in the US for some middleman to make money.