posted on July 24, 2000 10:31:16 PM newMarwin: I both agree and disagree with your premise. Studies have shown that prisoners who participate in educational opportunities in prison have a substantially lower rate of recidivism that those who do not. And it is a fact that almost 50% of criminals either have not completed high school or are illiterate, so providing education is a great thing. I would even support a trial of offering reduced sentences to *some* criminals who complete high school or college in prison.
And that is where I disagree. Such a thing should *not* be offered to all prisoners. Anyone up for murder, rape or child abuse should *never* be released until the end of their sentences. And in the case of sexual offenders, I would say they should *never* be released back out into society--there is no "cure" for such people & it galls me to see news reports of known sex offenders getting arrested *again* (and again. and again).
posted on July 24, 2000 10:35:12 PM new
Let er rip, LindaK. You are doing a fine job.
Let's give all of our inmates free educations with money I could be using to send my own kids to school. Well, one is out but the other is still there. Yeah, I really like that idea. Break the law. Get a free education. Durn, I've always tried to teach my children to have integrity.
Job training, which I believe prisons already do, is a good idea.
posted on July 24, 2000 10:47:42 PM new
Jules - It's not that I don't have sympathy for these situations, it's just that I feel we need to start somewhere. The system didn't work. Changes had to be made. Just as marwin shares about the jail system, and it's increasing population, the welfare system was rapidly growing bigger and bigger too.
I believe you are a young mother and wife who is now completing a college degree. Why didn't you choose to become pregnant and have babies and go on welfare? And when you're check wasn't enough to support yourself, why didn't you sell drugs? (Trying to make a point. - Not be sarcastic.) You made different choices for your life, your future.
These women have two years to get an education and be able to provide for themselves and their families, before being removed from the system.
I'm a lot older than you and in my mother's day, in Indiana, when women (married or not) had children they couldn't provide for they went in to orphanages. That wasn't easy for a mother to give up her child when she just couldn't care for them, or had no family to help them out. But it was her responsibility to care for them or suffer the consequences. Then that was declared 'unfair' and so states started helping out with welfare.
Sorry for being off topic marwin - but wanted to answer.
posted on July 25, 2000 10:50:04 AM new
Hi Linda-K --
I actually agree with you...in that the system was out of control, and needed reforming, though I don't think it had to be so drastic, and the changes could have been more incremental.
It seems like, to prevent fraud, we have thrown out the baby with the bath water. Not only was AFDC cut, but other programs, involving transportation and job training, were also cut. To me, if it was congress' goal to get people off welfare, and back to work, I would expect them to revamp transportation and job training programs, not reduce funding for them.
To be honest with you, before I married and had children with my husband, I was wayward and I did struggle, terribly. Luckily, I had the resolve to keep plowing ahead, and I had a mother who had such a way with guilt-trips, that I was always willing to listen to her. I made it, on my own.
BUT, I recognize that other folks don't have the nudging mother, and they don't have the resolve, and without a safety-net, they will founder. And then, their children will founder, and I wonder if we will see a rise in crime, as a result of these reforms, as folks do whatever they can to survive.
And it still irks me to no end that while we cut funding for moms and kids, we go on subsidizing MNCs, as if they need our help more.
Sorry again, Marwin, though I think all of this comes back to your original post.
posted on July 25, 2000 12:29:46 PM new
Jules - Yes, I agree that funding in the areas of transportation and job training programs shouldn't have been cut, at least initially while the transformation was going on. No system is perfect.
The example you gave of your mother's support (guilt-trips, nudging) is a good example. Just as in abuse cases, where it seems to be passed down from one generation to the next, IMO, so is the dependency on welfare.
The current generation of young girls don't get the support from their mothers that you did, because their mothers and maybe grandmothers don't know *how* to do that. We learn by what we are taught/shown (by example). They have 'modeled' for their daughters how to be dependent. Now that they are being weaned off the dependency of welfare, maybe...just maybe their children will see mom struggling to do better for herself...and thus provide a better 'model' for them when they are adults. It will take time to reverse this dependency issue, that's for sure. And the current generation will suffer the most from the changes. But it will keep getting easier.
There are creative ways to provide safety nets, it's just that the old system didn't encourage this. The government played that role. It used to be the family, friends, community, churches, etc. were the safety net. But once the government started taking care of everything, those support systems vanished.
Maybe my personal experience with the welfare system, through my granddaughters whole family, has given me a different perspective, maybe jaded my thoughts. But there were 6 young girls in that family who were receiving AFDC all living in the same house with their mother, father, grandfather and fathers-of-their-babies. Only one of those young men or women worked (while all were quite capable of doing so). They enjoyed the benefits of receiving that AFDC check each month. None of these young people, male or female *wanted* to work or better themselves, they were having fun doing what they wanted. Their basic needs were being taken care of. Had welfare known the fathers were living there, the checks would have been cut or lowered. But they all learned how to 'play' the system. Even grandma was being paid by the state to care for her own father (my GGs g-grandfather). It was much easier than completing school, getting a job and taking responsibility for themselves.
In the case above, it's my opinion that instead of grandma teaching/demanding/pushing this whole houseful of young people to be self-sufficient, stay in school, get a job, they were being 'taught' dependency and how to play the system.
The system has been abused by many and there weren't enough funds for the welfare workers to check out the fraud that was occurring in all these cases. As the general public started seeing all the fraud, that's when screams for change brought this about that change.
Taking responsibility for oneself and having consequences for our behavior/choices is what we need to get back to, IMHO.
Sorry for this way-too-long post, I don't seem to be able to get to the point quickly.
posted on July 25, 2000 12:46:10 PM new
Welfare was originally intended as a *short-term* thing that would help people in need get back on their feet--at which point they were dropped from the welfare rolls. Being on welfare was a "shameful" thing that people tried to *avoid* if at all possible regardless how hard up they were.
I wager that if every person on welfare was told that they had to *work* for the city or county in exchange for the dole, we would suddenly see a large decrease of welfare abusers. Look around...city streets are deplorably dirty...there's a lot of grafitti to get rid of, too...city buildings that could be cleaned...brush removal...highway clean-ups... There's a lot people on wlefare could be doing to earn it.
BTW, a friend of mine worked for years for social services for our county, and the scams she talked of (without naming names of "clients" of course), would make your blood boil. Several times when passing one of those "help me I'm homeless & hungry" fellas who haunt on & offramps of freeways she has said "there's another one I've got to report--he's on my caseload & getting welfare."
posted on July 25, 2000 01:47:26 PM new
Linda-K --
Your points are well taken, and I actually agree with most of them. I think the only place where they differ slightly is in the way reform was implemented.
posted on July 25, 2000 06:58:01 PM new
Marvin, just to bring some realism back into your post...do you realize that an accredited university has to have a certain volume of books and journals? Do you know that these books and journals can cost a university millions per year? And where do you get the professors to mentor the students? Only somebody with a Ph.D. can "teach" Ph.D. candidates. Only somebody with a Master's can "teach" a Master's candidate. And even if these prisoners graduate with a degree, what will their c.v. say they have been for the past several years?
Then there is the question of equipment----unless every student will be studying for Liberal arts degree, what about the science students? Do you realize how much it costs to equip a chemistry lab? a physics lab? a biology lab? One piece of equipment can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Where does that money come from?
And where are these professors going to live? And who will pay them? Benefits? What about research staff? Copiers? Curriculum review? The list of questions is endless, but I am sure that your post was not meant in earnest- sort of making a post for the sake of making a post?
posted on July 25, 2000 07:15:15 PM newThe list of questions is endless, but I am sure that your post was not meant in earnest- sort of making a post for the sake of making a post?
posted on July 25, 2000 07:32:06 PM new
glassperson: Currently each inmate is costing the Community about $20,000 per year.
That it not very far off from it costs to go to a decent College.
Certainly, out of the current $40 billion we spend on our traditional jail system, we could squeeze out say $1 billion, to run a pilot.
If we can't squeeze out $1 billion out of 40, then let's increase it to $41 billion. Hardly a difference.
So, funding is either already in place, or certainly can be made available without increasing anyone's taxes.
The Research equipment, Copiers, Library, everything you listed and more, can be procured from this initial, pilot, $1 billion project.
If this would be done in a smart way, a "Jail-University" would be built not too far from a good size city, and would be designed in such a way that it can be easily converted to a "standard" one. Teachers would live in the same conditions as if they teach anywhere else.
If the standards are high, and they would have to be, Teachers and Academics would have no reason to turn down excellent job openings. Benefits available to them elsewhere, could be made available to them in the same way.
The jail system currently employs over 500,000 people. Most of them enjoy all the standard benefits and more.
If you ask, what will someone's Resume say after graduation, ask yourself, what will someone's Resume say, with NO degree, when they are set free?
This post and this suggestion were not made "just to post something" but as a serious proposal for consideration.
While several have clearly indicated in their comments the strong negative feelings they have towards anyone and everyone who is in jail for pretty much any reason, there have been far fewer posts attempting to explain away why we have such a disproportionate number of people behind bars in our country.
Maybe the issue is embarassing. The "Land of the Free" has far more behind bars then the other comparable democracies.
Maybe the idea to "educate them out" which is the one presented here, is not the best, but so far, no one has even presented an alternative suggestion...?
...I know I have taken your thread completely off-topic. 