|
anonumos posted:And, while you draw up this budget, don't forget to consider 10-30 hour work weeks; most minimum wage employers hire 3-4 people to fill the hours rather than pay federal benefits. So, don't you dare , multiply by 40 and 52 for income.  So someone who is just scraping by will have a part time job and not get a second one? This is a ridiculous suggestion. Lets just assume that he does have a 40 hour a week job, instead of computing out two jobs of 20 hours a week. So, Here is the budget for a large metro area, lets say DC. Our theoretical ex-criminal lives here, not even public or Section 8 Housing. http://www.apartments.com/summary.a...=0.73&srt3=0.83 The one bedroom costs $650 a month. Lets say our theoretical ex-criminal is getting paid $8.25 an hour to be a janitor at the Department of Justice, working 40 hours a week. The cost of getting transportation too and from work is $4.90 a day on combined Bus-Metro. (4660 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SW to 633 INDIANA AVE NW) (Using a 28 day month to make things easier to compute.) So, he has $1,320 dollars a month. Minus $650 for rent. Minus $90 for transportation. Minus $150 for all utilities including cable and internet. He has no car, so no insurance or costs there. He has no homeowners or renters insurance. He is too poor to be required to pay any federal or state taxes. Minus $50 for emergency only health insurance. He has $380 dollars left. Lets say we take 15% of his income as the "punishment garnish". Thats $198. He has $182 dollars to pay for food (at $9.10 dollars a day), and he can shave money off of that to buy clothes, and see a movie/go to the bar/what have you. If you think this is ridiculous, I continue to eat for about half $9.10 dollars a day. That is a basic budget for you all, after this, I will leave the discussion to the rest of you for a long while. 
Medieval Thinker fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Nov 22, 2010 |
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
Medieval Thinker posted:He has $380 dollars left. Lets say we take 15% of his income as the "punishment garnish". Thats $198. So, you think 9.10$ per day for food, no money for anything else is enough? You would be content with that? Hell, you cheated and even then you get to something ridiculous. If you got busted for dealing drugs, being forced to live with less money will only make you try to go back to illegal activities in order to, you know, not just scrape by. 182$ per month isn't much, I don't think you'd enjoy living with so little for a year, much less for 5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 00:18
|
|
|
Uh, "all utilities including cable and internet" is going to be more than $150. I'm assuming "utilities" includes a phone, because you didn't mention it elsewhere, and a good bundle deal in the DC Metro area is &75/mo for cheap internet, cable, and a phone (source), which doesn't include any actual equipment (a 1-time fee or a monthly rental, we'll only consider the cable modem since phones are cheap, which looks to be about a 5 bucks more per month, by the same page). That leaves $75 for electricity. Average is almost $25 more than that. So right there, you're actually down to about $152 per month to spare. I don't know how you got $90 for transportation. Using $4.90 per day, and assuming a 20-day work-month (four 5-day weeks), that is $98 exactly. Most months have more than 28 days, but we'll use $98. That leaves us with $144/month, or $4.80/day. And that's with $50/mo health insurance. In DC, that gets you a $10,000 deductible with 20% co-insurance, which means that basically if you get a $20,000 procedure (that is miraculously covered by your poo poo terrible program), you're out $12,000 for it. So while he technically has health insurance, he still can't afford to go visit a doctor ($5 bus fare + $25 office copay = more than a week's "savings", plus he'd have to miss work, putting him even farther in the hole). Still think that sounds good?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 00:48
|
|
|
Medieval Thinker posted:
You are trying to say that 40 hour work weeks are common as dirt. As if such work is ready for anyone with a hard work ethic. As if all you need is a pulse to be fully employed. You're quite wrong. My mother is the hardest working person I've ever met. She has 100% attendance at any job she works. She's constantly putting herself forward for more hours, but she never gets them despite being at the low end of the pay scale (presumably making her more attractive based only on wages). When the auto industry went on life support, she lost her job at a bearing manufacturer. There was always a chance she could be brought back if things improved, and luckily that's what happened. But she spent over a year working at a Walmart deli for far less than 40 hours a week. Even now, back at the bearing plant, she can't get enough hours to fill the week. She's still working part time at Walmart, but this is very very rare. Again, you clearly have no idea how difficult it is to hold two jobs, especially if you don't have private transportation. You cannot split a 40 hour work week with two employers when public transportation can take as long as 2 hours in most cities if you're going between home, work #1, work #2, and back home again. Well, you could hold two jobs in those circumstances. But you won't have much of a life. In fact, it'd be damned close to indentured servitude. I've known many people who did this, and they wore themselves out. If they aren't working, they're sleeping. No social life. No prospects. Just working for the rest of their lives to pay for housing, bus fair, cheap food, trashy clothes that fall apart in 3 months, having to choose between electricity and the heating bills. You cannot imagine how hard it actually is to live on anything less than $30,000, especially if that's what you make before taxes. Medieval Thinker, you may be a troll, but you're definitely wrong and have no cause to speak for the working class.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 00:54
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Medieval Thinker, you may be a troll, but you're definitely wrong and have no cause to speak for the working class. I think the point that is being lost here is that the situation I am describing is an alternative to being in PRISON. This goes straight to 21stCentury's point, no I would certainly not enjoy living for five years with such minimal flexibility or money to spend on something other then the absolute bare essentials. Would I enjoy it compared to being in prison for five years? Absolutely.  This policy suggestion is not meant as an insult to the working poor, it is meant as a more productive, lesser of two evils alternative to sending small time criminal offenders to prison. If you don't think that this is a good trade-off, or there is a truly viable third option which would solve this problem, please say so. This is a thread about how bad prison is  (no duh), so this is merely a way to avoid sending them there. Again, not trying to be fascistic or condescending to the working class, just proposing a policy option.EDIT: Not to say Goons are a sample of the society at large, but I guess at least with this demographic this policy is not very popular.  Oh well. Carry on then.
Medieval Thinker fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Nov 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 02:15
|
|
|
Medieval Thinker posted:I think the point that is being lost here is that the situation I am describing is an alternative to being in PRISON. This goes straight to 21stCentury's point, no I would certainly not enjoy living for five years with such minimal flexibility or money to spend on something other then the absolute bare essentials. Would I enjoy it compared to being in prison for five years? Absolutely. Look, your alternative option? It might not be worse than prison, but it's drat near as bad. Wage Garnishment on top of a conviction guarantees that you have to make do with about 5$ a day to eat for years, no money for anything else, no time for anything else. Seriously, your option? it's like telling a guy "you have a choice, either we break both your kneecaps and both your wrists or we can break only both your kneecaps and one wrist." Not only would you not enjoy living like that for 5 years, you'd probably not be able to live like that for 5 years. The smallest little incident can pretty much leave your rear end in the street with no money and nothing to your name. It's almost slavery at that point, and that's if, IF the convict is able to get 2 part time jobs. You might say that it's not meant to be enjoyable, but think of it from the perspective of a convicted criminal. Someone who was an habitual drug user? That kind of lifestyle would most certainly lead him back to drugs just to loving deal with the stress. Someone who was a drug dealer? He knows how much money he can make dealing drugs and when you can only spare 5 bucks a day to eat, you can be pretty loving desperate. A burglar? A car thief? a mugger? They know they can make enough money to be able to, you know, afford things like beer or even clothes by doing a bit of it on the side. Even someone who would be willing to turn their life around would quickly find there's very little they can do if they want to turn their life around on a tight budget like that. Really, the only way this can work is if we give them financial aid, at which point the whole "wage garnishment" thing kinda falls apart. i mean, really, all you're proving is that you'd rather have criminals in the street and suffering than behind bars and suffering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 03:41
|
|
|
Moreover, wage garnishment like that encourages crime (or at least getting paid under the table), since it means income you won't be reporting and thus income you get to keep all of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 05:19
|
|
|
Medieval Thinker posted:I think the point that is being lost here is that the situation I am describing is an alternative to being in PRISON. This goes straight to 21stCentury's point, no I would certainly not enjoy living for five years with such minimal flexibility or money to spend on something other then the absolute bare essentials. Would I enjoy it compared to being in prison for five years? Absolutely. Don't feel discouraged, I can tell you are genuinely trying to suggest solutions to this problem. Your idea is in fact better than the current system. The issue is that such a system would only work within a context of a properly functioning and just system of law and social equality. That isn't really what we have now. Rutibex fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Nov 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 07:33
|
|
|
Seriously, though, here's how I see it all. Let's say America is a body, a giant living, thinking, feeling creature. Citizens are the lifeblood, politicians are the brain cells, workers are the muscles, social services such as police departments, hospitals, etc. are the organs. Crime would not be a disease. Crime would be a symptom. Same for poverty, low voting rates, et cetera. Many people treat those as diseases. There's crime, we can fix that by putting criminals behind bars and dehumanizing them. There's poverty, we can fix it by calling them lazy and refusing to help them. The thing is, it would be much easier to fix the Justice system by working on everything outside of it. Get a bit more redistribution of wealth going on by taxing the rich more, to make society a bit more equal (as it stands, 1% of the population owns something like 90% of wealth of the country. It's on par with 3rd world countries!). Make it easier for poor people to survive and you'll reduce the crime rate. Rich people have more to lose from a life of crime, after all. I mean, here's some real-world solutions that would certainly help fix the American Prison System
That's 4 ideas that wouldn't touch the prison system, not directly at least, but would certainly help it be not horrifying. it's all connected. American exceptionalism is sort of true, the way most Americans were indoctrinated makes it possible for America to have a society that has the largest prison population per capita. 21stCentury fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Nov 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 13:13
|
|
|
Medieval Thinker posted:If you don't think that this is a good trade-off, or there is a truly viable third option which would solve this problem, please say so. Oh man check this rad idea out: I pay you nothing, deal drugs and declare no income. Unless you catch me dealing, you're hosed out of restitution(lol blood from a stone). That's a joke, obviously, because it's not a third option. It's the first, last and only option. It's also an excellent way to promote and cement gang membership.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 13:22
|
|
|
quote:(Using a 28 day month to make things easier to compute.) hahahahahaha $150 for ALL utilities? really? Cable, internet, electric were covered, and found to total $25 more than that made up number. But is this poor fucker expected to be allowed to wash? to drink? Better add water then. What about laundry? bastard has to keep his clothes clean if he doesn't want to be fired, so that's either Laundromat or hand washing (using quite a bit of water, and drip drying, making his apartment damp). What about heating? That's usually gas/oil fired, so add that as a cost too. We can probably call the water, gas and laundry bills at LEAST another $50 a month, probably more. so he now has about $100 a month. $100 a month. For all his food, clothing, routine healthcare (I'm talking aspirin and cough medicine so he doesn't have to miss work if he's a bit sick), non-work travel, and anything and everything else he might need. He can disconnect his internet and phone, sell his computer and probably scrape by, but how is that helpful? Why take a person who could have made a positive contribution to society and force them to merely survive in a life of austerity, boredom, exhaustion and isolation? Those are the conditions that LEAD to petty crime in the first place. Does anyone have links to the story about that one judge who used creative/ironic sentencing as an alternative to incarceration for relatively minor crimes? I think it often took the form of very specific types of community service which forced the offenders to work with and confront the people their crimes had hurt, and I recall it being very effective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 15:09
|
|
|
From LFHELLO THERE posted:Assessing the Contribution of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill to Growth in the US Incarceration Rate
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 22:01
|
|
|
Illinois prison population surges to record high. This after a recent report by a watchdog group detailing harsh treatment in IL prisons.quote:Confronted with putting more offenders in the same amount of space, administrators are doubling up every available cell. As many as four inmates are bunked in slightly larger cells intended for two handicapped prisoners. At the intake facility at Stateville near Joliet, incoming inmates regularly sleep on cots in a gymnasium or prison hospital. Guards say overcrowding provides fewer disciplinary options — some prisons have been pressed into holding problem inmates in "segregation" in the same areas as regular inmates. Overcrowding also leads to more inmate assaults on staff, guards say. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 22:01
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:Seriously, though, here's how I see it all. Your ideas are very insightful and I wish there were more people thinking like that around the world, not only in the US. I do worry about your custom title, though. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 02:41
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:Your ideas are very insightful and I wish there were more people thinking like that around the world, not only in the US. That red title is the price i pay for not shying away from defending everyone, including an incestuous relationship between a man and his grandmother he never knew (as he was adopted). Not to derail this thread, but i still don't think "It's totally gross" is a good enough reason to shun them, especially when the grossest part is the woman's age. But feel free to buy me another title. I don't care nearly enough to do it myself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 03:15
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:That red title is the price i pay for not shying away from defending everyone, including an incestuous relationship between a man and his grandmother he never knew (as he was adopted). I'm going to continue this derail for just one post but "Genetic Sexual Attraction" is pretty common among adopted children who meet their biological family members as adults - wikipedia had a pretty good article and explanation on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 19:53
|
|
|
I didn't know they could force women not to get pregnant under the threat of jail (turned out to be a death sentence in this case). http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/woman_jailed_for_getting_pregnant_dies_from_medical_neglect
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2010 10:31
|
|
|
baquerd posted:I didn't know they could force women not to get pregnant under the threat of jail (turned out to be a death sentence in this case). What's wrong with that? If you can't do the time (which includes not getting medical treatment until it's too late), don't do the crime (which includes violating insane probations). Seriously, what the gently caress? How can you jail a woman for getting pregnant whilst under probation? What kind of crime can forfeit your reproductive rights? Is this routine probation terms for women in the US? Do the authorities in the US still believe that children born from criminals will always be criminals? Or is this solely a "Prostitutes or former prostitutes will always sexually abuse their children and force them into prostitution by age 5" thing? Did they force her to have an abortion? This is just insane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2010 12:59
|
|
|
Honestly my favourite line I've ever heard uttered in Oz was by the nun when she said that evil can only be overcome by love. And I hate this thread because it always reminds me of how right she was and I love it because it reminds me of how loving right she was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2010 13:03
|
|
|
quote:The violation seems to be not that she became pregnant per se, but the pregnancy was the proof that she had sex, something which is not permitted for those residing in these quasi-detention centers (14+ hours a day) while on “work release” programs. Because work release is technically voluntary (from what I understand), you get to sign away a lot more than the government can take from you legally. I bet the outcome would be the same (but more outrageous) if she was raped.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2010 13:12
|
|
|
Hernando posted:Honestly my favourite line I've ever heard uttered in Oz was by the nun when she said that evil can only be overcome by love. And I hate this thread because it always reminds me of how right she was and I love it because it reminds me of how loving right she was. Speaking of Oz.... Obviously being a drama the individual narrative arcs are going to be highly fictionalised and the frequency/intensity of certain events exaggerated, but that said, how "accurate" a representation of US prison life is that show? Do the kind of things depicted there (especially things like the gang structure and attitude of guards) go on as a matter of routine, or is most of it made up wholecloth for dramatic effect?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2010 13:46
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:Speaking of Oz.... I would say that it is all-too-accurate. Ironically, the point of the show is sort of to say that even the best imaginable prison is still completely dehumanizing, so the only fictional part about it is the imaginary "good" prison that they use as a set sometimes :P The writers have a pretty weird sense of humour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2010 14:16
|
|
|
Hernando posted:I would say that it is all-too-accurate. Ironically, the point of the show is sort of to say that even the best imaginable prison is still completely dehumanizing, so the only fictional part about it is the imaginary "good" prison that they use as a set sometimes :P The writers have a pretty weird sense of humour. If you thought the prison in Oz was in anyway good I'm not really sure what show you watched.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2010 14:36
|
|
|
lemonadesweetheart posted:If you thought the prison in Oz was in anyway good I'm not really sure what show you watched. I haven't watched Oz, but the way he put "good" in quotes makes me think he meant "Not as terrible as the other".
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2010 14:46
|
|
|
lemonadesweetheart posted:If you thought the prison in Oz was in anyway good I'm not really sure what show you watched. I think he's talking about Emerald City, which was set up as an experiment in being slightly less of a dick to prisoners. And the point was it was still horrible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2010 14:51
|
|
|
lemonadesweetheart posted:If you thought the prison in Oz was in anyway good I'm not really sure what show you watched. I dunno, I distinctly remember a guy getting tattooed with OZ on his arm during the opening credits..
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2010 14:58
|
|
|
baquerd posted:I didn't know they could force women not to get pregnant under the threat of jail (turned out to be a death sentence in this case). I have to admit that I'm a bit monstrous for laughing at the concept of putting a prostitute into a "work" release program and being surprised that she became pregnant. Yeah this is a pretty clear violation of her human rights, but that's par for the course these days. I literally wouldn't be surprised if a story came up that prisons with budget shortfalls where selling inmate organs or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2010 21:44
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:I literally wouldn't be surprised if a story came up that prisons with budget shortfalls where selling inmate organs or something. I've had an argument with an American who thought that'd just be the great free market at work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2010 22:47
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Because work release is technically voluntary (from what I understand), you get to sign away a lot more than the government can take from you legally. I bet the outcome would be the same (but more outrageous) if she was raped. However, work release generally means that you basically pick up trash on the side of the highway and stuff like that instead of going to jail. From the quote quote:Amy Lynn Gillespie, of Cuddy and, later, Knoxville, was jailed in December for violating the terms of her work release by becoming pregnant. You work like 2 days a week instead of going to jail. If that is the case, i believe "violating the terms" is the wrong word. Work release, because it is almost always physical labor, has very tight restrictions on medical conditions. If you have a bad back or something, that can disqualify you. As can pregnancy. More likely, she didn't violate the terms, she didn't qualify for the program so she had to go to jail instead. The medical treatment is despicable, but the "probation" thing isn't really relevant or real.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2010 06:13
|
|
|
No Country for Second Chances: Obama still has not granted one pardon and has turned down 605 requests for commutations.quote:LAST February, after long delays, the Justice Department sent President Obama hundreds of recommendations on requested pardons, each one carefully selected for a quick decision under standards for clemency that presidents have followed for decades. Andrew Cuomo tours the belly of the Beast: Tryon youth prison is a textbook case of N.Y. dysfunction. quote:It became national news in 2006 when 15-year-old Darryl Thompson of the Bronx died after being pinned facedown on a bathroom floor during a tussle with staffers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2010 22:12
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:No Country for Second Chances: Obama still has not granted one pardon and has turned down 605 requests for commutations. Why do I still come to D&D? It depresses me so much, especially with what the "good" party is actually doing, or in this case, not. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2010 22:48
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Why do I still come to D&D? It depresses me so much, especially with what the "good" party is actually doing, or in this case, not. You better stay the gently caress out of LF then duder. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 00:29
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Why do I still come to D&D? It depresses me so much, especially with what the "good" party is actually doing, or in this case, not. I regularly envy people who can juts filter this out and not give a gently caress. I wish I could know their secrets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 02:54
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:No Country for Second Chances: Obama still has not granted one pardon and has turned down 605 requests for commutations. I'm sure people here know the background, but anyway: In 1988, Michael Dukakis lost the Presidential election, partly because one of the black prisoners released on furlough during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts raped and killed a white woman. In 1992, Bill Clinton won the Presidential election after returning to Arkansas during the campaign to personally oversee the execution of a severely brain-damaged black prisoner. Obama's policy is a political calculation based on a perceived public demand for dead prisoners. The public has to take a share of the blame for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 03:22
|
|
|
Maveryck posted:I'm sure people here know the background, but anyway: This is what exemplifies that biggest flaw with a democratic system. At some point, the only way to get to power is by doing what makes voters feel good and not what needs to be done. If a president wants to be elected, he can't promise to do the right thing if it's hard or if it means people will have to make sacrifices. A benevolent dictatorship is probably the best political system. Too bad there's no such thing as an incorruptible human.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 04:27
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:This is what exemplifies that biggest flaw with a democratic system. It's not like Obama has followed through on pretty much any campaign promises. They could just lie like they always do and tell people they will be "tough on crime" then do an about face and institute reforms and end the drug war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 06:32
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:It's not like Obama has followed through on pretty much any campaign promises. They could just lie like they always do and tell people they will be "tough on crime" then do an about face and institute reforms and end the drug war. Look, as a president, you get 4 years to prove to everyone that you deserve 8. The biggest reforms will need a lot of sacrifice and probably longer than 4 years. no matter how you look at it, as president you only get 4 years, at most, to do the hard decisions. And if after your term is over it's not done, you have to expect the people to elect someone specifically to tear down what you put up. No, Obama or any other president couldn't lie to get elected and then fix the Justice system, it would need 3 things that Obama (or any other president) doesn't have:
Heck, saying you need to do it in 4 years? i mean do it all, get it passed in congress, convince everyone it's the best thing, do the reform AND prove to everyone it did work. It's impossible to do all that in just 4 years and it's foolish to think it's possible to get 2 terms with a plan like that. The very way it all works ensures the status quo. A single president can't do large reforms because there's about 50% of the population that will oppose everything the president says or does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 13:38
|
|
|
Does prolonged isolation drive death-row inmates insane?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 05:14
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:Does prolonged isolation drive death-row inmates insane? I doubt I could make it 12 hours without being damaged. I don't think anyone deserves that, even the one-percenters I talked about earlier. I'd rather die than have to go through ten years of that. And seeing them expand the use of it on people who are in jail for selling dope or something is abhorrent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 08:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 23:58
|
|