03-20-2016, 02:20 PM
(03-20-2016, 02:02 PM)BengalsRocker Wrote: Fair enough.
I never said it was a "new" concept.
It certainly would cost more to have to supervise inmates and keep them working.
As you know, there are some people who actually volunteer for work when incarcerated.
Mostly because they want to have purpose or do something with the time. Sometimes for other deviant reasons.
The system is flawed. There is no denying that. Some prisons have to be overhauled because of corruption within.
Just the fact that inmates can influence others and have a system within the prisons shows that they have too much time on their hands.
Those idle hands do nothing but create problems. That is my opinion though.
You have good inmates that participate in worthy programs so I'm not condemning them or the reform process.
Its those who choose to do something other than to improve or change their ways of thinking I have issue with.
They should not have that choice... and if they do choose to opt out, they should be put to hard labor.
There should be consequences. No consequences... what's the point? You might as well put them on the streets.
Here is the difference between us. You have a "sense" of what is happening. I have "knowledge".
Prisoners got into just as much trouble and tried to escape just as often (usually more often) when they were subject to constant hard labor. The idea that "idle hands" is the basis for these problems is a perfect example of the difference between "common sense" and "common knowledge".
The commissary system and the cost of phone privileges are ways for the jails to make more money. i don't agree with them, but that has zero to do with hard labor for inmates.
Prisoners volunteer for work details only when they get sentence credits, are granted a "trustee" status, or get a chance to get outside of the jail for a while (a taste of freedom).
You have already agreed that going to jail is a punishment so i have no idea what you even mean about "no consequences".
