346
TIL you can pay $100 per night for Premium Jail with more comfortable conditions (www.latimes.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
70 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Well, you're completely missing the point of the comment you were originally replying to, so this is really another topic entirely. I don't have all the answers, but there are other countries who seem to have it closer to figured out than we do, so we could start by taking notes from them. Acting like this is an unsolvable problem isn't helping anything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What was the point of your comment then? I’m sorry I missed it.

    Tangentially then, I’d suggest to you that while it is useful to adopt more therapeutic models of inmate care through a rehabilitation focused correctional centre, ultimately the effort required to change behaviour at the point of incarceration is inordinate. (Take a read: https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112833)

    Crime (and violence) is and remains a social problem and directing funding and effort near the end of a criminal episode (at the point of incarceration) is not as effective as providing a decent social safety net that provides for a stable household and gives children a chance denied to their parents. (Old paper but gives you an idea as to the complexity and unreliability of solving this: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/171676.pdf)

    If I have given the impression that I think this is unsolvable I apologise, that’s not at all my position.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    The original comment was really just intended to point out the shit take in the article. It spends a lot of time talking about how bad people can pay money to get jail accommodations that are less awful, but its tone is overwhelmingly that the problem is that nicer accommodations are available for people who pay (which I do agree should not be a thing), but its implication is that everyone should have to be subject to the same awful conditions, not that the conditions should be improved for everyone regardless of their economic position. It sounds like they're saying, 'Some criminals are able to spend their time in jail in conditions that aren't awful and dangerous, isn't that terrible? You should be angry about that.'

    The stance I was taking is that if we're going to be mad about something, it should be that jails are so awful by default.

    (Take a read: https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112833)

    I don't have access to this journal, unfortunately.

    (Old paper but gives you an idea as to the complexity and unreliability of solving this: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/171676.pdf)

    This seems to suggest that low-effort, generic solutions don't work, but that more personalized, targeted solutions tailored to the individual are effective. That tracks with what I think we all would assume to be true.

    I think it's also worth noting that the article is talking about jails, not prisons. In theory, criminals sentenced to time in jail, rather than prison, would be the prime candidates for a focus on reducing recidivism, rehabilitation, and re-integration into society.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent