Prison overcrowding is not a valid reason to create more prisons

[BenRayfield]

I want there to be less prison overcrowding, more sanitary conditions, good meals, safety from other prisoners, and all the things a prisoner should have, and I'm willing to pay the taxes to make it happen, but thats not what this thread is about.

Months ago, there was a California vote (YES or NO) to spend more tax money to build more prisons because the prisons were overcrowded.


I voted NO, meaning do not build more prisons and let them get more overcrowded, for the purpose of prisons being overcrowded this year and much less overcrowded in the future. Voting NO was the most effective way to reduce prison overcrowding, but it appears (to people who do not think ahead far enough) to have the opposite effect.

How does building less prisons reduce prison overcrowding?

Unconditionally, in the USA, if there are more prisons, then laws (on average) will become stricter to fill those prisons, but if there are less prisons, laws (on average) will become less strict. Example: the less dangerous prisoners get released.

Therefore, for the purpose of reducing the power of the USA government (on average) and reducing prison overcrowding in the future (on average), I voted against building more prisons, and I suggest everyone else vote the same way. Voting for more jails is a vote to fill those jails.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I want there to be less prison overcrowding, more sanitary conditions, good meals, safety from other prisoners, and all the things a prisoner should have, and I'm willing to pay the taxes to make it happen, but thats not what this thread is about.

Months ago, there was a California vote (YES or NO) to spend more tax money to build more prisons because the prisons were overcrowded.


I voted NO, meaning do not build more prisons and let them get more overcrowded, for the purpose of prisons being overcrowded this year and much less overcrowded in the future. Voting NO was the most effective way to reduce prison overcrowding, but it appears (to people who do not think ahead far enough) to have the opposite effect.

How does building less prisons reduce prison overcrowding?

Unconditionally, in the USA, if there are more prisons, then laws (on average) will become stricter to fill those prisons, but if there are less prisons, laws (on average) will become less strict. Example: the less dangerous prisoners get released.

Therefore, for the purpose of reducing the power of the USA government (on average) and reducing prison overcrowding in the future (on average), I voted against building more prisons, and I suggest everyone else vote the same way. Voting for more jails is a vote to fill those jails.

Right. Let the culling commence.

Bullets, or Xyclon B?

DR

 

[Eyeron]

So we can only build higher and higher prisons.

Great.

When the walls come tumblin' down, when the walls come crumblin' rumblin', down....

 

[Lanzy]

I want there to be less prison overcrowding, more sanitary conditions, good meals, safety from other prisoners, and all the things a prisoner should have, and I'm willing to pay the taxes to make it happen, but thats not what this thread is about.

Months ago, there was a California vote (YES or NO) to spend more tax money to build more prisons because the prisons were overcrowded.


I voted NO, meaning do not build more prisons and let them get more overcrowded, for the purpose of prisons being overcrowded this year and much less overcrowded in the future. Voting NO was the most effective way to reduce prison overcrowding, but it appears (to people who do not think ahead far enough) to have the opposite effect.

How does building less prisons reduce prison overcrowding?

Unconditionally, in the USA, if there are more prisons, then laws (on average) will become stricter to fill those prisons, but if there are less prisons, laws (on average) will become less strict. Example: the less dangerous prisoners get released.

Therefore, for the purpose of reducing the power of the USA government (on average) and reducing prison overcrowding in the future (on average), I voted against building more prisons, and I suggest everyone else vote the same way. Voting for more jails is a vote to fill those jails.

Do you believe we pass laws just to fill prisons? I think most prisons cost the public money, even more when they are filled. It would be self serving to empty the prisons and save taxes. But it doesn't work that way...either way. Prisons get built after overcrowding not in prediction of overcrowding.

 

[BenRayfield]

Do you believe we pass laws just to fill prisons? I think most prisons cost the public money, even more when they are filled. It would be self serving to empty the prisons and save taxes. But it doesn't work that way...either way. Prisons get built after overcrowding not in prediction of overcrowding.

I agree that people who work in the government do not do it intentionally. I agree that prisons get built as a result of overcrowding and not the opposite order. I'm talking about the way the whole government works overall. You are talking about what small parts of the government do, while being a "cog in the machine", instead of what the whole "machine" does. I'm not saying the "machine" knows its doing that, but I am saying, with complete certainty, that the "machine" is doing that, and I gave a strategy to stop it.

An analogy: The neurons in your brain are used for your high-level thoughts, but you can not learn that from asking any specific neuron(s) if they are trying to cause those high-level thoughts. Also, most small groups of neurons are not smart enough to learn that they are part of a high-level thought. Neurons are each a "cog in the machine" of your brain the same way as government employees are a "cog in the machine" of the government.

The relevant part of my post is:

Voting NO was the most effective way to reduce prison overcrowding, but it appears (to people who do not think ahead far enough) to have the opposite effect.

 

[Suddenly]

This assumes that anyone cares that the prisons are overcrowded, a thin assumption at best. The general attitude is that the prisoners deserve it.

One conversation:

Me: Are you sleeping on a mat on the floor?

Client: No.

Me: So they have a bed for you?

Client: No, they are now out of mats.

xxxxxx

Even better was when I talked to a client that was tossed in "solitary confinement." He said something about his cell mate.

Me: Errr... I thought you were in solitary?

Him: Yeah... they are double bunking that now.

Me: (facepalm)

xxxx

Any relief here is based on the $$/day to imprison people. Nobody gives a crap about crowding unless they wind up there, but they will ask a lot of questions about whether someone needs to be locked up for $60/day or whatever. That is mostly independent of crowding.

 

[BenRayfield]

This assumes that anyone cares that the prisons are overcrowded, a thin assumption at best.

I did not assume that. I planned for that and its opposite and any combination of those.

The general attitude is that the prisoners deserve it.

Most people think that. A much higher fraction of people who have been in prison would disagree. Either way, if people think that, then they can selfishly agree with me by voting NO to save money and not build more prisons.

Nobody gives a crap about crowding unless they wind up there

Everybody that votes to allow more prisons to be built is simultaneously increasing their own chance of going to prison.

 

[Suddenly]

I did not assume that. I planned for that and its opposite and any combination of those.

I maintain that not building prisons only will cause fewer prisoners if someone cares how packed in the prisoners are. Until then, they just keep jamming then in there. The gym, the hallways, etc.

Of course, that is up until they literally run out of physical space and have to jam prisoners into the building like some sort of Tokyo subway.

Everybody that votes to allow more prisons to be built is simultaneously increasing their own chance of going to prison.

...or decreasing their chance of being a crime victim as better prisons provide a better chance of rehabilitation. It is hard to get job training or a GED in a prison when people are housed in all the classrooms.

Not to mention the more conservative claim that people in prison don't commit crimes, so more prisoners = safer streets.

 

[Praktik]

Not to mention the more conservative claim that people in prison don't commit crimes, so more prisoners = safer streets.

Lol love the logic of the plebes!

Who cares what conditions are like! Overcrowded? Oh they dont have their own beds? I am now playing the world's smallest violin, at least they're off the streets and we're safer!!

Meanwhile, precisely because of these conditions (and the fact that not everyone is in for life) this whole system drives crime on the streets since these are the kinds of things that are irritants to recividism. And if the only people looking out for you in there are gang members, who are you gonna go to when you go out?

 

[BenRayfield]

I maintain that not building prisons only will cause fewer prisoners if someone cares how packed in the prisoners are. Until then, they just keep jamming then in there. The gym, the hallways, etc.

Of course, that is up until they literally run out of physical space and have to jam prisoners into the building like some sort of Tokyo subway.

You're right, but what I said that you're responding to was not designed for people who do not care if the prisons are overcrowed. The parts of my words that are designed for you are the money saved by building less prisons and the decreased chance of YOUR CHILDREN or the CHILDREN of your friends and families, many years from now, that will be subject to stricter laws as a result of allowing more prisons to be built. Please, think of the CHILDREN.

...or decreasing their chance of being a crime victim as better prisons provide a better chance of rehabilitation. It is hard to get job training or a GED in a prison when people are housed in all the classrooms.

Are you starting to care about having less overcrowding in prisons?

Either way, that is off-topic because the topic is the theory that building less prisons results in less prison overcrowding. The topic is not the pros and cons of overcrowding.

...or decreasing their chance of being a crime victim

That does not explain why criminals convicted of "victimless crimes" should stay in prison, or why more prisons should be built for them to occupy.

 

[MikeMangum]

I voted NO, meaning do not build more prisons and let them get more overcrowded, for the purpose of prisons being overcrowded this year and much less overcrowded in the future. Voting NO was the most effective way to reduce prison overcrowding, but it appears (to people who do not think ahead far enough) to have the opposite effect.

How does building less prisons reduce prison overcrowding?

Unconditionally, in the USA, if there are more prisons, then laws (on average) will become stricter to fill those prisons, but if there are less prisons, laws (on average) will become less strict. Example: the less dangerous prisoners get released.

Therefore, for the purpose of reducing the power of the USA government (on average) and reducing prison overcrowding in the future (on average), I voted against building more prisons, and I suggest everyone else vote the same way. Voting for more jails is a vote to fill those jails.

I've never actually seen an example of magical thinking before. Thank you for that.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Unconditionally, in the USA, if there are more prisons, then laws (on average) will become stricter to fill those prisons, but if there are less prisons, laws (on average) will become less strict. Example: the less dangerous prisoners get released.

Therefore, for the purpose of reducing the power of the USA government (on average) and reducing prison overcrowding in the future (on average), I voted against building more prisons, and I suggest everyone else vote the same way. Voting for more jails is a vote to fill those jails.

You do realise that if your argument was true (in the real word), the prisons wouldn't have become overcrowded in the first place?

 

[BenRayfield]

I don't know if that's sarcasm or not, but either way...

Emergence of unusual events is not "magic". Its just extended thinking into logic and science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence

 

[BenRayfield]

You do realise that if your argument was true (in the real word), the prisons wouldn't have become overcrowded in the first place?

I don't see why that would happen. Please explain.

 

[Darat]

I don't see why that would happen. Please explain.

It's simply the result of your argument - according to your argument it is the intent of the authorities to fill up prisons, therefore once a prison is full
they would have achieved their goal.

 

[volatile]

How do countries like Holland - which have too many prison places - feed into this argument?

 

[Darat]

They must be passing new laws as we post to fill up those places.

 

[BenRayfield]

according to your argument it is the intent of the authorities to fill up prisons

No. I said the authorities do not know they are doing it, but its happening as a result of a more complex process that none of them understand. I wrote:

I agree that people who work in the government do not do it intentionally. I agree that prisons get built as a result of overcrowding and not the opposite order. I'm talking about the way the whole government works overall. You are talking about what small parts of the government do, while being a "cog in the machine", instead of what the whole "machine" does. I'm not saying the "machine" knows its doing that, but I am saying, with complete certainty, that the "machine" is doing that, and I gave a strategy to stop it.

An analogy: The neurons in your brain are used for your high-level thoughts, but you can not learn that from asking any specific neuron(s) if they are trying to cause those high-level thoughts. Also, most small groups of neurons are not smart enough to learn that they are part of a high-level thought. Neurons are each a "cog in the machine" of your brain the same way as government employees are a "cog in the machine" of the government.

 

[BenRayfield]

They must be passing new laws as we post to fill up those places.

No. Theres a delay of months or years before the laws become more strict to fill the new prisons. The less dangerous prisoners are released before that, soon after the government ("the machine", not the specific people in the government) gives up on tricking people into allowing more jails to be built. Theres a delay.

 

[Ekinodum]

You're right, but what I said that you're responding to was not designed for people who do not care if the prisons are overcrowed. The parts of my words that are designed for you are the money saved by building less prisons and the decreased chance of YOUR CHILDREN or the CHILDREN of your friends and families, many years from now, that will be subject to stricter laws as a result of allowing more prisons to be built. Please, think of the CHILDREN.



Are you starting to care about having less overcrowding in prisons?

Either way, that is off-topic because the topic is the theory that building less prisons results in less prison overcrowding. The topic is not the pros and cons of overcrowding.



That does not explain why criminals convicted of "victimless crimes" should stay in prison, or why more prisons should be built for them to occupy.

I think the problem with your premise is that the reasoning is too convoluted, and the approach is too roundabout. The People of California Have Voted, and your viewpoint lost- they believe that building more prisons is, in fact, a valid way to reduce overcrowding. It is (They Believe), a simple matter of supply and demand- build more prisons and the demand for floorspace will go down; it's market pressure, something the People comprehend.

Having lost the vote years ago (California has been on a prison building binge for decades now, and Cailornia has been a leader in the phenomenon of throwing the book at miscreants by way of 3-strikes, for instance), you are in effect trying to undermine The People's Decision through a back door- if you can't get what you want by popular vote (in this case, your actual goal appears to be to stop making laws more strict; lots of luck with that), you can try again by un-funding the prisons. Unfortunately this approach does not appear to work (at least in California) as evidenced by the financial schizophrenia in that state (mine, by the way, and full disclosure- I have been involved in the construction of 6 California prisons). The majority of Californians want more prisons (and more schools, and services, and parks, etc.) and the majority of Californians also don't want to pay for them.

I'm pretty sure I have made a hash of your argument at this point- my apologies, as I am sympathetic; but no new prisons = more overcrowding = less strict laws = less people sentenced to prison = less overcrowding is way too complex and speculative of a causational string to fly with The People. Try something simpler, like repealing 3 strikes and/or decriminalizing victimless crimes.

By the way, it's quite possible that we are doomed.