An interesting idea for Convicts/inmates

[Hivetyrant]

Yeah, but it is still possible.

[Lady Sedai]

But these guys *aren't* being treated "like animals". They are being treated like prisoners. Prisoners lose most of their "rights" under the law when convicted.

These people are not being abused or tortured. They are siimply having to live without the "luxuries". They are adequately clothed and fed. They are made to pay for their keep and put in an honest day's work to make up for their crimes.

Who said air conditioning is a "basic human right"? I know people NOT in prison who don't have A/C. My mother being one of them as hers hasn't worked in years and she can't afford to have it fixed or a new unit put in. And pRon magazines certainly are not a "given". And who needs weight machines when these people are getting plenty of exercise each day working?

Now, if they were being chained to posts or locked up in those old-timey stocks or even "hot boxes", I'd say the guy was going too far.

As it stands though, I think he's setting the proper "mood" for these guys to NEVER want to do something that will land them back in prison again.

If you guys think this place is inappropriate, what's your take on juvenile "work camps"? Very similar places used to "rehab" kids on the wrong path. And most times, they work. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Gangrell]

Originally posted by Gnarf: They should also be raped, as others are having sex outa their own free will :\

Yeah, that made no sense whatsoever.

Look, it's really simple. You kill someone, you go to prison, grand theft auto, rape, so forth, you go to prison. Forensics are good enough to where they will find the person responsible, not like it was twenty years ago and the most they could do was point a finger. You commit a crime, you lose your rights. When you kill someone, you don't deserve a cushy bed with cable tv and coffee, you need to be out having your ass end busted for what you did.

The point of it is, to put them through as much hell as possible so they won't go back.

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Hivetyrant: quote: Originally posted by Marikai: However, Hivetyrant pointed out that it was too large in size (420kb - limit is 150kb) So it's gone ~Marikai

Aww man, now I sound like a villan
I was trying to be nice [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]I have a smaller version DK reduced for me, he might still have it (as my photobucket accoudn lapsed and my stored images are gone)

[Dron_Cah]

Originally posted by Lady Sedai: But these guys *aren't* being treated "like animals". They are being treated like prisoners. Prisoners lose most of their "rights" under the law when convicted. These people are not being abused or tortured. They are siimply having to live without the "luxuries". They are adequately clothed and fed. They are made to pay for their keep and put in an honest day's work to make up for their crimes. Who said air conditioning is a "basic human right"? I know people NOT in prison who don't have A/C. My mother being one of them as hers hasn't worked in years and she can't afford to have it fixed or a new unit put in. And pRon magazines certainly are not a "given". And who needs weight machines when these people are getting plenty of exercise each day working? Now, if they were being chained to posts or locked up in those old-timey stocks or even "hot boxes", I'd say the guy was going too far. As it stands though, I think he's setting the proper "mood" for these guys to NEVER want to do something that will land them back in prison again. If you guys think this place is inappropriate, what's your take on juvenile "work camps"? Very similar places used to "rehab" kids on the wrong path. And most times, they work. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[img]graemlins/jumpclap.gif[/img]
[img]graemlins/lurking.gif[/img]

[Lox]

Originally posted by Gangrell: The point of it is, to put them through as much hell as possible so they won't go back.

Well, I have no hard evidence to back this up, but it seems to me that most of the maximum security prison in the U.S. are pretty harsh places, but I'm sure the repeat offender rate is pretty high still.

Just because you make a punishment really bad, doesn't mean everyone will avoid it. Some people are "forced" into lives of crime, whether it be from economics, upbringing, family influence etc. I'm not trying to make excuses for offenders, I'm just saying that if they were behaving rationally, no one would commit a crime after spending a week in a prison like San Quentin.

In the latest issue of the L.A. Weekly the cover article is about a US attorney who is using the RICO statutes to go after the Aryan Brotherhood, which is the most violent prison gang in the U.S. I forget the exact numbers, but the government is saying that the AB is responsible for something like 50-55 murders/executions over the last 10-15 years or so. The interesting thing is, most of these murders were committed either by people on parole (hits on snitches on the outside) or by people serving less than life sentences. My point is (assuming the charges are true) that these men, serving say a 10 year sentence, have no problem committing a murder that will most likely result in a life sentence. I find it hard to believe a rationally thinking person would make this decision.

My guess is that prison life is so bad that they feel they have nothing to lose. They must do what they must do to survive in prison, which means joining a gang, which leads to further crime. I'm not saying that prison should be like Candyland, but if you force humans to live in inhuman conditions, you shouldn't be suprised if they turn into animals.

[Cerek]

Are their any members of the Aryan Brotherhood at this tent jail? If not, then it sounds like that is actually an advantage over San Quentin.

Rehabilitation has been tried since the early 70's in America - and for the most part - it has been an utter failure. The ones that do rehabilitate are the ones that had the discipline and will to change their lives in the first place. Prison was often a "wake-up" call for them. Until then, they felt they couldn't (or wouldn't) get caught.

Rehab does NOT reduce repeat offenders. Instead, our society starting making the same statements you are making - it isn't the person's fault that he/she broke the law.

I'm sorry, but "YES, IT IS!!!"

And the BEST way to convince people to NOT break the law is to PUNISH them for doing it. Not say "OK, I realize you had a hard time growing up, so it isn't really your fault that you decided to steal that nice shiny car and drive it through the streets at 80 miles an hour. Oh sure, you could have hit an innocent pedestrian, but you didn't did you? So no harm done"
Well, except for the owner of the formerly shiny nice car.

I think the most conclusive statement is the one quoted by Ilander earlier from a Reader's Digest article - where one of the inmates complained about the conditions and said "They treat us like we're prisoners or something".

Guess what, homey - YOU ARE PRISONERS! You BROKE the Law!

As the song from Baretta said "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

[ 02-10-2005, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Cerek ]

[Dace De'Briago]

Is it actually possible to force an inmate to work?

Is it moral?

[Dreamer128]

While I agree with some of his measures (pink underwear, lol), I've also heard some less then favorable things about this sherrif. Such as feeding the innmates food that is well overdate and no longer suitable for consumption by human beings. Also, not all of the locals seem pleased with 'Joe'. The following is quoted from this (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issue...feature_1.html) article.


There are many reasons Arpaio should be removed from office, and removed as soon as possible.

Foremost is that this demented cretin is an increasingly dangerous threat to the safety and security of the three million-plus people living in Maricopa County.

Not only has he failed to fulfill his primary duty as sheriff -- which is to safely operate the county jails -- he has undermined the ability of law enforcement agencies in the county to implement anti-terrorism security measures mandated by the federal Department of Homeland Security.

Arpaio's decision to disband the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office's SWAT team last December is sending shock waves through law enforcement circles, and jeopardizing a countywide plan to have eight highly trained and heavily fortified rapid-response teams poised to react to terrorist attacks.

This puts the citizens of the county at unnecessary risk, says Fred Taylor, a Republican party official who served as a special criminal justice assistant to former governor Fife Symington.

Taylor says "Maricopa County's probably the most vulnerable county in the country" to a terrorist attack because of its large geographic size, proximity to a porous international border and potential prime targets like the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, the world's largest commercial nuclear plant.

Arpaio, Taylor says, has alienated other law enforcement agencies with his cowboy mentality, which makes it difficult to develop a coordinated law enforcement effort.

"Nobody works with Joe," Taylor tells me. "You can't find me one chief of police in Maricopa County who will support Joe."

Indeed, every law enforcement group in Arizona backed Saban in the primary.

Arpaio's credibility took another hit when he began dismantling the SWAT team soon after he won reelection in November. Although I made fun of MCSO's SWAT officers for an inept raid on an Ahwatukee home last summer (a house was burned down, a puppy incinerated, and MCSO's armored personnel carrier smashed into a parked car), the squad before that had enjoyed a good national reputation.

Soon after the election, Arpaio launched a massive shakeup within the sheriff's office, and about 300 officers and civilians were reassigned to new duties. Several of the deputies moved off the SWAT team had openly supported Arpaio's Republican primary opponent, Saban. The transfers, including those of two SWAT commanders, were seen inside the department as retaliation.

The turmoil created tremendous stress among the remaining members of the SWAT team as they readied for a December 16 raid on a mobile home in search of a murder suspect.

A shootout ensued, and two sheriff's deputies were seriously wounded. The deputies -- Sean Pearce and Lew Argetsinger -- have since criticized Arpaio's decision to transfer key personnel from the team and reduce training. Both men told the East Valley Tribune after the shootout that they expected retribution from the sheriff's office for speaking out.

The Tribune quoted the men as saying they agreed to talk because they believe Arpaio's reorganization of the SWAT team and other changes put the lives of deputies and the public at greater risk.

Soon after the gunfight, Arpaio disbanded the entire SWAT team. And, typically, Arpaio launched a witch hunt. He called for an internal investigation of SWAT and ordered its former officers not to discuss the reorganization.

Despite the turmoil and his publicly disbanding the squad, Arpaio suddenly claimed the other day that he has a fully functioning SWAT team, after all. And, guess what? It's eligible for a $350,000 federal Homeland Security grant, he maintained.

Law enforcement experts say this is impossible, since the MCSO would have to all but start from scratch after eliminating the unit. It takes years of highly specialized team training, they say, to create an efficient and effective strike squad.

As for the grant, it's supposed to fund a highly specialized emergency-response unit capable of operating sophisticated equipment that could be used in the event of a terrorist attack.

The City of Phoenix is managing a program to create eight crack response teams scattered across the county. Phoenix is expected to supply personnel for three of these units, but has only enough manpower to fully staff two. The third was to be manned by members of the sheriff's office's SWAT and bomb squads.

Now serious questions have been raised over whether the MCSO can fulfill this mission. Skeptics say it appears the sheriff's office is merely seeking the money to provide basic training for an entirely new SWAT team -- which is not what the grant is intended to do.

Jake Jacobson, executive director of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, a police labor union, says Arpaio is attempting to deceive federal and state authorities by falsely claiming he has a SWAT team capable of handling the duties required by the Homeland Security grant's specifications.

"It's a farce!" Jacobson declares. "To us, it borders on criminal that he's trying to take this money under the guise he has a SWAT team when, in reality, he doesn't."

MCSO supporters will quickly dismiss Jacobson's comments, claiming he's trying to undermine Arpaio in any way possible because the sheriff refuses to negotiate contracts with police unions. But other officials involved in the Homeland Security grant also are wary of the sheriff's office's handling of its SWAT team and the application for the grant.

Marcus Aurelius, emergency management coordinator overseeing Homeland Security grant applications in Phoenix, says he's also concerned over whether any new sheriff's SWAT team is qualified to receive the money.

"This thing is not over with. It's not a done deal," Aurelius says about whether the MCSO will get the money. "We're moving forward with things based upon what we have been told [by sheriff's office brass]. They are either correct in their statements, or they're not. If they're not, they're going to be held accountable for that."

SWATgate is the latest in a long and twisted avenue of screw-ups by Arpaio since he was first elected in 1992.

The most recent and expensive misadventure has been his failure to staff two new state-of-the-art jails.

Taxpayers have spent more than $500 million to build the facilities with more than 3,200 beds. Yet the jails remain virtually unused because Arpaio has been unable to fill more than 1,200 detention officer vacancies needed to safely operate the new facilities.

It's not as if the need for additional detention officers is a surprise.

Arpaio has had seven years to make sure there would be enough detention officers to open the jails. Voters first approved a 1/5th-of-a-cent sales tax for jail construction and operations in 1998. In 2002, voters extended the jail tax through 2027. The sales tax was projected to generate several billion dollars to build and operate new criminal justice facilities in the county.

In an effort to attract detention officers, the county has raised starting pay to about $32,000 a year and lowered the employment age to 18. In recent months, there has been an increase in the number of detention officers getting trained. However, attrition remains high, and the overall shortfall of guards remains about the same as it was a year ago.

Working conditions inside the operating jails are horrible, with many guards working extra shifts. The county also is competing for qualified applicants with far more professional police agencies in the Valley.

The result is, few qualified applicants with any common sense want to work for a vengeful and paranoid boss like Arpaio.

"If employees speak out against the sheriff, they can almost be assured that an internal investigation will be undertaken and any prime position they have will be in jeopardy of being lost," says Brian Livingston, executive director of the Arizona Police Association, a trade and lobbying group that represents scores of police employee groups throughout the state.

Opening the new jails and quickly completing the planned remodeling of Madison Street Jail would greatly reduce the horrendous overcrowding in county lockups and help settle claims in an ongoing federal class-action lawsuit that has been before the U.S. District Court in Phoenix for 28 years.

There are about 3,000 sentenced inmates and 6,000 pretrial detainees jammed into county jails built to house 5,200 prisoners. Arpaio purposely keeps the jail population higher than necessary by refusing to use effective diversion programs that other counties, including Pima, have used for years.

These programs have saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars because they reduce the need for new jails. But Arpaio wants to pack as many people in jail as possible. This generates income for the sheriff's office from fees paid by cities, the state and the federal government for holding prisoners.

Arpaio is so obsessed with keeping the jails full that he frequently targets parents who fail to pay child support for arrest and incarceration.

While I have a very low opinion of parents who skip out on obligations to pay for their children, I don't understand Arpaio's rationale for locking up these people. He keeps such parents incarcerated until they somehow come up with money to make good on delinquent child-support payments.

How in the hell can a parent do that when he or she isn't working? This illustrates that Arpaio isn't about solving the problem -- he couldn't care less about the kids of these parents while they rot in jail.

This is just another way to keep citizens crammed in his clinks. That way, Arpaio not only generates funds, he gets to claim that treating these minor lawbreakers like hardened criminals is protecting a public apparently frightened senseless by the threat of crime.

Just last month, still another inmate died unnecessarily because of bungling by Arpaio's detention officers, including their failure to communicate with Correctional Health Services, which is supposed to provide health care to county jail prisoners.

The January 23 death of Deborah Braillard is especially shocking because it was easily preventable. All the 46-year-old woman needed was her insulin to treat her severe diabetes.

The MCSO's line is that the woman didn't tell jail medical staff that she was diabetic when she was booked. But her daughter, Jennifer Braillard, doesn't believe this claim, saying her mother was no fool and knew she had to have insulin daily or she would quickly become sick.

Jailers say they thought she was a drug addict. They apparently never bothered to look at her medical records. If they had, they would have seen she was given insulin every day during a two-month jail stint in the winter of 2003-2004.

The timeline of Deborah Braillard's last hours of consciousness vividly reveals the callous disregard of human life inside Arpaio's lockups.

She was picked up on a probation violation, charged with possession of illegal drugs, and jailed on the evening of January 2. Nurses were in her cellblock two times on January 3 and once on the morning of January 4. There is no record they examined her or provided her insulin.

By 3:30 p.m. on January 4, Braillard was complaining to detention officers that she was having trouble breathing and feeling sick. A nurse came through the pod at 7 that evening, but did not treat Braillard, records indicate.

Braillard's condition continued to deteriorate that night. By 3:15 a.m. on January 5, a detention officer wrote in a security report that Braillard was "kicking and was groaning/yelling" so loudly that she was waking other inmates in the dormitory.

Instead of seeking medical help, detention officers moved her to another room, where her agonizing screams would not disturb other inmates. Despite Braillard's obvious pain, there is no record that a nurse who came through the pod at 7 a.m. treated her. An hour later, Braillard was moved back to her bunk in the dormitory.

Jennifer Braillard tells me she didn't even know her mother was in jail until the night of January 4, when she learned of her mother's plight from some friends.

Worried about her mother's health, Jennifer says she called the jail as soon as the switchboard opened about 7 a.m. on January 5. She wanted to make sure they knew her mother was diabetic.

"I told them this was very important, and I also told them the type of insulin she needed," she says.

It's unclear whether Jennifer Braillard's call triggered detention officers to do something, or if Deborah Braillard's condition had deteriorated so much that it was no longer possible to ignore her plight. Jennifer Braillard says she's been told that jailers found her mother face-down on the floor.

Sheriff's records indicate that Deborah Braillard was finally transferred to a medical ward by wheelchair at 10:05 a.m. on January 5.

After her early-morning January 5 call to the jail, Jennifer Braillard says she never heard another word from Arpaio's detention officers concerning the condition of her mother. It wasn't until the evening of January 6 that she received an update.

It was bad news.

"The hospital called me and said to get there immediately, that she was in ICU," Jennifer recalls. "They told me she was in a diabetic coma."

Her mother drifted in and out of consciousness before finally dying on January 23.

Naturally, Jennifer blames the county jail for the needless death of her mother.

"Five days without insulin is ridiculous!" she says. "If they provided the care that she needed, she would not be dead."

Fact is, Arpaio is not concerned that another inmate has died because of deplorable neglect. He told me soon after he was first elected in 1992 that his job is to lock people up and take away their rights. Period.

Including, apparently, their right to live.

Joe Arpaio thinks it's good publicity for the public to hear about the atrocious conditions inside his jails. He says he's deterring crime.

The truth is, despite his jails being considered among the worst in the world by Amnesty International, their harsh reality has done nothing to reduce the sky-high property-crime rate in Maricopa County -- which is among the highest in the nation.

Meanwhile, Arpaio has botched his chief responsibilities as sheriff. He's wasted so much time with idiotic ideas that it makes me wonder if rumors circulating in Republican party circles that the 72-year-old's suffering from dementia are true.

What legitimate purpose did it serve for Arpaio to have John Walsh, a television crime show host, fly to Phoenix along with Walsh's eight-member support staff to conduct a meaningless swearing-in ceremony?

All the other county elected officials were content to be quietly sworn into office in late December. But not Arpaio.

He needed to have his ego stroked by diverting deputies, support staff and God knows how much money for the pomp and circumstance that featured the America's Most Wanted personality.

I wanted to attend this foolish event in late January to see what morons would set aside time from their day to kiss Arpaio's ass. But I was turned away at the parking lot of the sheriff's training center, as toothless local broadcast and daily newspaper reporters were welcomed inside.

"This is a secure event, and you're not on the list," a smartly dressed deputy told me after I provided my business card. "You'll have to turn around and exit."

I complied with the orders, knowing that I'm already considered a "threat" to the sheriff's safety. See, I've dared to ask him such questions as why he hides his personal finances from the public and why he treats celebrity prisoners -- such as crooner Glen Campbell and pro sports mogul Jerry Colangelo's daughter -- royally while those without connections get the patented tough-guy treatment.

After last fall's primary election, I was immediately accosted by members of Arpaio's Threat Assessment Squad and escorted out of the county's elections department headquarters inside the Phoenix Civic Plaza under the threat of arrest because I asked the sheriff when he would release information I had sought under the Arizona Public Records law.

These are bullying tactics you would expect from what President Bush calls "axis of evil" nations -- not from the head of the fourth largest sheriff's department in the country.

For too long, political leaders in the state have been intimidated by Arpaio's swagger. They have been cowered into silence by his proven willingness to abuse his police authority and investigate political opponents, like Dan Saban, as if he were some two-bit Sudanese dictator ("In the Crosshairs," June 24, 2004).

He's scared nearly every political leader in the state, except U.S. Senator John McCain, who would love to have Arpaio's scalp attached to his belt.

McCain could play a pivotal role in a recall campaign. The Republican senior senator's endorsement of Dan Saban came late in the primary campaign last summer, and didn't have time to resonate with voters. If McCain backs the fledgling recall movement, it would give the effort immediate credibility.

Ironically, it's GOP members, not Democrats, who will likely lead the charge to send fellow Republican Arpaio packing.

It's very unlikely that Governor Janet Napolitano will take on Arpaio, although she has a golden opportunity at this moment to drive a stake through the sheriff's most high-profile idea ever -- the Tent City jail.

Nothing has generated more publicity and political support for Arpaio than his infamous tent complex, despite the fact that courts have called it an extremely dangerous facility.

Tent City has been in violation of the Arizona State Fire Code since the day it was first erected in 1993. The only reason it has been allowed to operate for the past 12 years is that the state fire marshal grants MCSO a variance every six months.

Another request for a variance is now on the desk of acting state fire marshal Bob Barger, who was appointed by Napolitano to succeed Duane Pell, who retired on December 31.

Pell tells me that the Fire Marshal's Office never expected Tent City to be permanent.

He says the variance was first approved in 1993 because the jails were overcrowded and because voters had turned down a bond issue to build new ones. But voters have since approved the 1/5th-cent jail tax, and two new jails have been built. More facilities are to be constructed in the future.

Pell says he would expect the Fire Marshal's Office to reexamine its policy to issue the variances as permanent jails are completed. The Fire Marshal's Office did not respond to my questions concerning such future variances.

But Pell made it clear that if Janet Napolitano asked the office to take any action concerning the tents, it would happen.

"If Governor Napolitano said we need to look at Tent City, I guarantee you there would be a couple of fire marshals out there looking at Tent City," Pell says.

The Governor's Office, however, also did not respond to my request for comment.

It's clear that Arpaio has no intention of ever closing down Tent City, despite the construction of new jails. No matter how much it costs taxpayers from settlements of numerous lawsuits filed by inmates. He keeps the tents open purely for public relations purposes.

Napolitano has the power to put an end to Arpaio's tent jails by ordering acting fire marshal Barger to deny the sheriff's request for a variance. If she can't muster the courage to cut Arpaio off at the pass, she could at least give him notice that this is the last variance that will be issued, and he has six months to get the new jails up and running.

I doubt Napolitano has the nerve to get into a face-off with Arpaio. After all, it was Arpaio who came to her rescue during that razor-close 2002 gubernatorial race with the television commercial.

Many Maricopa County Republicans remain livid over Arpaio's defection to Napolitano's camp in 2002, blaming him for Republican candidate Matt Salmon's narrow loss. The Maricopa County Republican Executive Guidance Committee -- which includes the top party bosses -- last year refused to endorse incumbent Arpaio and instead backed Saban.

This severely damaged Arpaio's campaign. He went from a 71 percent approval rating among Republican voters in the winter of 2004 to the narrow 55.9 percent victory over Saban in the primary.

Ominous for Arpaio is that Salmon was elected last month to be the new head of the Arizona Republican party. Salmon now has the clout to rally the troops and generate campaign funds to back the planned recall of the sheriff.

In an interview last summer, Salmon made it very clear how he feels about Arpaio.

"I don't respect him," Salmon said. "I don't think he's playing with a full deck."

I'm confident there will be a groundswell of support for a Recall Joe Arpaio campaign from a throng of outraged citizens, police and fire unions and, most important, key Republican party officials.

"I don't think we would have a problem getting the county executive guidance committee to vote to support a recall," says Bill Norton, Republican District 22 chairman.

It was Norton who started the Republican rebellion against Arpaio last year when District 22 voted overwhelmingly against endorsing the incumbent. Norton says he's more than ready to keep the revolution alive.

Arpaio, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has in the past repeatedly said he's only accountable to the people who elect him.

"I don't report to any bureaucrat, any politician or any governor," Arpaio said at a recent Republican women's luncheon that I attended in Scottsdale. "I report to the people."

Arpaio has used a series of clever public relations ploys to keep his name in front of the public. Such gimmicks as pink underwear, the mounted posse, chain gangs, and now the voluntary fingerprints at traffic stops are meant to project the image that he's keeping everyone safe and aggressively fighting crime.

"When he came into office, he implemented some ideas that were unusual and strange to the Valley, but that seemed to be effective, and people were responsive," says the Arizona Police Association's Brian Livingston.

But over time, Livingston says, Arpaio has "lost sight that he's here to serve the people, and not that the people are here to serve him."

The recall would be the ultimate test of Arpaio's political strength. If it is successful, he would have a choice of either resigning or standing for another election sometime late this year or early next year.

Waiting in the wings of a successful recall campaign is Dan Saban.

Saban, 48, says that while he's staying out of the recall campaign so as not to be accused of sour grapes, he's ready to challenge the elderly Arpaio at the ballot box.

Saban could hardly contain his excitement at the prospect of a recall and the opportunity to run against Joe sooner than the 2008 election.

"If they are successful with a recall effort," Saban says, "you bet I'd run against him again!"

[Lox]

Originally posted by Cerek: Are their any members of the Aryan Brotherhood at this tent jail? If not, then it sounds like that is actually an advantage over San Quentin.

I don't know, but I doubt it. The AB started in the 60s (I think) in California, and has spread to other state and federal prisons since then, but I doubt that they have an organized presence in the Tent jail (or any other county jail for that matter.) And I completely agree.... I would much rather go to a jail or prison where the AB was not a factor. Throughout the penal system they are recognized as the most vicious, brutal, and fearless inmates.

Rehabilitation has been tried since the early 70's in America - and for the most part - it has been an utter failure.

Rehab has never been the main goal of the US criminal justice system. They may say it is, but it isn't. I'm sure there are program or individual prisons that excel at rehabbing prisoners, but for the most part, our prison system is more interested in punishing them.

Rehab does NOT reduce repeat offenders.

Neither does punishment.

Instead, our society starting making the same statements you are making - it isn't the person's fault that he/she broke the law. I'm sorry, but "YES, IT IS!!!"

I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I didn't mean to imply that criminals aren't responsible for their actions. Ultimately, everyone bears responsibility for what they do. What I was trying to say was that there are certain characteristics of culture and society that contribute to crime. Are these characteristics fully responsible for the crime rate? Of course not. But I believe if we address these issues, it will have a positive effect on the crime rate (meaning it will go down).

Now you ask, what characteristics of society and culture is he referring to? Well, there's too many to name, and most have little overall effect, but some of them are big. Probably the biggest would be the huge disparity of wealth in (my) country (United States). I forget the exact figure, but something like the top 5% of the population holds 95% of the weatlh. Couple this with a rapacious advertising industry that constantly tries to get us hooked on drugs (both literally and figuratively) and you have an atmosphere where most of the people have nothing and are made to feel shitty because of it.

Another big one for me is guns. We flat out have too many guns in this country, and it's too easy for people to get them. Do I want to ban all firearms? No. But do I want Dylan and Erik to buy 1000 rounds of ammo at Kmart and shoot up their High School? No. This is a very sticky issue, because it is held by so many to be one of our fundamental freedoms. I'm not sure exactly what the solution is, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve more guns.

I think the most conclusive statement is the one quoted by Ilander earlier from a Reader's Digest article - where one of the inmates complained about the conditions and said "They treat us like we're prisoners or something". Guess what, homey - YOU ARE PRISONERS! You BROKE the Law!

LOL. Yeah, that's was a pretty funny quote. Some people are pretty stupid. Doesn't mean you should treat them like an animal though.

For the record, I think some of the methods of the Sheriff are pretty good. Pink underwear, making them work or pay for food, etc. I saw a show on Discovery a few years ago about a Psych experiment. They painted the walls of a holding cell different colors. I think they found the the yellow holding cell had the least amount of violent events. However, they shouldn't serve them past-date food, as the long article quoted above asserts.