Ex-Cons Forced to live outdoors in Oregon

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Let's see, he just served out his due punishment, but he should be punished after it just for kicks? This is the tone I hear in your words anyway.

A prison system where the conditions are designed to be living hell for the inmates without any letup are nothing but a waste of money. The prisoners will focus on how shitty their conditions are, and they will be angry, and they will hate, and they will tend to see everything in terms of the system trying to grind them down. It's not conducive to any productive results.

One where the prisoners are treated decently (This does not mean they are pampered!!) and given a chance to gain something for themselves (an occupational skill, for example) and really put their past behind them has a much greater rehab rate than the other system described above. Of course there will be reoffenders, those can never be prevented with a 100% guarantee, but there will be a lot less of them.

Then there is also the matter of the prison being punishment for the crimes committed, and loss of freedom is punishment, duration indicates severity. It doesn't (and shouldn't) have to be intentionally cruel beyond that (e.g. treating the prisoners like animals). If it is, it's just unnecessary and counterproductive bloodlust being carried out institutionally for nobody's gain.

Edi

He's not being forced to live there, Edi. It's transitional housing--something he's being given free until he can go out and get a job. Welfare housing. For ex-convicts no less. He's already served his time and conditions in the prison were undoubtably better. Basically the problem is that he's a worthless appendage to society and now that he's done his time nobody wants to take care of him, so the State has to. Why should the State pay any more money to do that than is absolutely necessary? The guy is a convicted felon.

[Edi]

Ah, I see.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Now I agree that it is rather stupid to have the guy out there doing nothing. But the fact is that is that sex offenders are effectively unreformable, and what would be the point of educating him when he's just got a 70% chance of reoffending? They're just going to have to toss him back in when he commits another crime, and if we can't protect his innocent victim because our system is screwed up enough to let him out in the first place, we might at least try to save some money.

Now, for felons in general, I think using them as work-gangs for highway repair would be particularly useful, since they'd have the skills and then you could turn around and hire them as non-union labour to work at highway repair as soon as they got out. But we'd have to de-unionize the state DOTs first to get that through. Or better yet a federal programme under the Army Corps of Engineers, which actually does things in a remote semblence of on-budget occasionally; I don't mind federal money to infrastructure that might be needed for national defence. But you shouldn't pay them for it or given them a choice (the ones in prison, mind)--it should always be mandatory labour. Make them learn. Never let them mooch off the state. The moment you're convicted of a felony you've lost every right you've ever had, until, and or if, a judge sees fit to give those rights back to you.

Then we could pretty much ignore this entire thing here, which is basically a lack of proper planning--if one in turn ignores the fact that sex offenders should only be let out of prison in, at earliest, say their sixties or seventies. If then. Chemically castrated.

[Durandal]

Now, for felons in general, I think using them as work-gangs for highway repair would be particularly useful, since they'd have the skills and then you could turn around and hire them as non-union labour to work at highway repair as soon as they got out. But we'd have to de-unionize the state DOTs first to get that through.

The problem is that the unions would put up an ungodly fight, and they'd probably win -- at least in Illinois. Why would any state want to pay union rates when it could just train prisoners and have them work for a minuscule fraction of the cost of a union? Yes, putting them to use would be a good thing, but when that use encroaches on the job opportunities of free, tax-paying citizens, you can't expect it to happen.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The problem is that the unions would put up an ungodly fight, and they'd probably win -- at least in Illinois. Why would any state want to pay union rates when it could just train prisoners and have them work for a minuscule fraction of the cost of a union? Yes, putting them to use would be a good thing, but when that use encroaches on the job opportunities of free, tax-paying citizens, you can't expect it to happen.

Why should the government have to have unionized labour, though, Durandal? I mean, seriously, don't those people get their job protection by voting? They're supposed to be public servants. Unions are fine for private companies, but the idea of unionized public services is utterly outrageous.

[NecronLord]

Why should the government have to have unionized labour, though, Durandal? I mean, seriously, don't those people get their job protection by voting? They're supposed to be public servants. Unions are fine for private companies, but the idea of unionized public services is utterly outrageous.

The American psyche, a fascinating and often terrifying place, somewhere you wouldn't want stay the night for sure.

[Uraniun235]

Pissing outdoors is indecent exposure, and a sex offense in many states.

Holy shit, I was a sex offender at three!

[Montcalm]

Pissing outdoors is indecent exposure, and a sex offense in many states.

Holy shit, I was a sex offender at three!

Go to your room you little pervert.