Adapted from e-mail conversations with Eugene of 29, 30, and 31 November 1999. His comments are in blockquotes with a red bar to the side.
I don't mind laws, I just insist that they be applied equally to all people. If prisoners are forced wo work, they must be paid at least the minimum wage (though, presumably, they could be charged for the actual cost of their incarceration if such a policy were in effect.)
My supposition would be that they balance (ie. any prisoner forced to work is entitled to a wage sufficient to pay for his incarceration plus some minor discressionaries, and save enough to fill his crack-pipe when he gets home.) or there is something seriously wrong with our penal system's administration.
Equal protection would imply that a prisoner, so long as his income is taxable, would not incurr any greater obligation beyond that of an ordinary citizen. His housing and food are, presumably, at a lower standard (and probably cheaper by virtue of it) and those savings ought rightly to be passed on to him, likewise, his utilities could easily be included in the cost of his rent. Even accounting for a reasonable profit for the state (which, under this logic would have the rights and obligations of a landloard) it should be no higher than the equivilant standard on the outside.
His protection is another matter entirely, the state is responsible for the protection of all persons, and so, rightly, should incur that responsibility here as well... The taxes to support Law Enforcement would, of nessecity, be higher given that the vast majority of people in prison are known criminals, and such taxes should rightly be borne by the people in need of the extra protection. But would this not violate the principle of self-government, since incarcerated persons are not allowed to vote or have any say in their own administration?
Difficult indeed. The only resort I can see would be to allow the inmates, to a certain extent, to run the asylum as it were. (preferably the greatest which can be reconciled with the other duties of the state) Time to add a few rights to the constitution, I suppose. See constitution, Article III, Chapter C, sections 20 through 21
So, what do you think?
Sounds great at first reading. Second thoughts: Our jailterms are entirely too long for most crimes. I would take the view that jail is supposed to primarily rehab, secondly protect the outside from the evil criminals that got caught. I dont subscribe to the notion of punishment through locking up someone. However, i totally disagree with your order of things: restitution to the victims is first, and the state is at most second in line.
I would agree with you in the ordering, but would consider punishment a valueable purpose of incarceration, third after the other two, and in any event, not something which ought to be specified in a constitution.
As for restitution, the present draft already compells the state to insure all damage awards (presumably through the compulsive power of the state, through probably in practice through the state insurance company with collections by the tax agentcy.) and so it needn't be worried about, the restitution will be paid in any event.
Also, how can a medical researcher, e.g., perform his kind of work in jail, the work that he gets the mostest money for if done on the outside ... i would want restitution to be real, at the rate commensurate with the $$skills of the prisoner, but restitution must never extend beyond 25 years.
True enough; there is no constitutionally pretected right to choose one's own profession in Bathnell (the closest we come is the right to manage one's own affiars under (I.E9), which might gain that meaning through interpretation) and even if there were such a right, punishment for a crime would be an exception just as it is for (I.E9) in the current draft.
Still, the poor physician who is slapped with a million lawsuit, will be unable to pay even the interest on that sum at jailbirds' rates. I think it would be in the best interest of the state to allow the prisoners to make the mostest money the way they used to. I cannot see one speck of sense in denying a person their profession while incarcerated for any length of time. Accreditation with the state board of physicians e.g., is an entirely different matter ...
Yes, the state has an interest in allowing the skilled prisoners who can practice, to a large extent, while incarcerated (i.e. Attourneys, doctors, whores, etc.) and for the benefit of either the state or the prisoners should be allowed some limited practice, but such people are quite rare in prisons. The majority have very few job skills outside of crime, and the state has an obligation to train them.
But for the majority of criminals, learning job and citizenship skills is an essential part of rehabilitation, and so the state has a compelling interest in determining which jobs can be undertaken in prisons, and what training should be provided.
Citizenship skills??? Pulling the left or the right hand-side lever?? Gimme a break, i have no clue what you mean here.
Yes, prison should make the felon a better citizen. He's allowed to vote, represent his interests in a consensus comittee, serve on juries, petition, even hold public office, so the state has just as much interest in making him a better citizen as it does with anyone else, perhaps moreso since its obligated to use his taxes for his own direct benefit (which it isn't with other taxes) and also obligated to rehabilitate him.
So what about rape in prison? Does the landlord-state accept responsibilities for damage done, physical and psychological?
It depends on the laws in effect, if an ordinary landloard or inkeeper would have such a responsibility, then the state should be held to no less a standard. The constitution requires that the state provide a safe incarceration, and so it could be argued that there was a cause of action under (I.E10), but it's debatable...
Indeed, especially since hardly a prisoner is in jail of his own volition, to the jailkeeper has a much greater responsibility to protect the prisoner than an innkeeper has towards his guests.
To the extent that it is operating as the state, I'd tend to agree with you there, since the state has the obligation to keep everyone secure in any event, absent even the special obligation towards prisoners.
Given the special provision, it's a matter up to the courts to decide just how far "insure" goes. I'm sure they'll be less timid than I would were I required to write a provision.
The victims gain a sense of closure and justice from the criminal being locked away. Plus society at large has a chance (though not a very large one) of benefiting from the deterrant effect that the possibility of punishment brings.
THE SOLUTION (in my opinion) is:
These six steps, I believe, would work to avoid the high crime rates of the United States.
(1.) insures that drug addicts will not have to rob people, etc. to get their fix, anyone with a job should be able to support both themselves (food, clothing, housing, etc.) *and* their habit.
(2.) insures that everyone will have the skills they need to get a job, communicate effectively, and, as a side benefit, be better citizens in the process. (3. & 4.) create wealth and distribute it fairly.
(5.) Catches the people the other steps miss, and gives them additional chances to be good citizens. and
(6.) avoids urban sprawl, the car culture, and the decay of cities, so avoiding the class segregation in the US, concentrations of poverty and wealth (leading to crime, and also dangerous to good government), and promotes a strong sense of community (beneficial to crime rates, anti-poverty measures, and good government)
With these measures in place, one could be assured that the majority of criminals break the law by choice, and not due to circumstances beyond their control. The poor and the vicefull need not become criminals merely because of that. There will always be criminals, the aim is to make the curve correspond to the majority population as much as possible.
| |
| |