In what is commonly called “pay-to-stay” or “private jail,” a constellation of small city jails — at least 26 of them in Los Angeles and Orange counties — open their doors to defendants who can afford the option.
Well, you’re completely missing the point of the comment you were originally replying to, so this is really another topic entirely. I don’t have all the answers, but there are other countries who seem to have it closer to figured out than we do, so we could start by taking notes from them. Acting like this is an unsolvable problem isn’t helping anything.
What was the point of your comment then? I’m sorry I missed it.
Tangentially then, I’d suggest to you that while it is useful to adopt more therapeutic models of inmate care through a rehabilitation focused correctional centre, ultimately the effort required to change behaviour at the point of incarceration is inordinate. (Take a read: https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112833)
Crime (and violence) is and remains a social problem and directing funding and effort near the end of a criminal episode (at the point of incarceration) is not as effective as providing a decent social safety net that provides for a stable household and gives children a chance denied to their parents. (Old paper but gives you an idea as to the complexity and unreliability of solving this: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/171676.pdf)
If I have given the impression that I think this is unsolvable I apologise, that’s not at all my position.
The original comment was really just intended to point out the shit take in the article. It spends a lot of time talking about how bad people can pay money to get jail accommodations that are less awful, but its tone is overwhelmingly that the problem is that nicer accommodations are available for people who pay (which I do agree should not be a thing), but its implication is that everyone should have to be subject to the same awful conditions, not that the conditions should be improved for everyone regardless of their economic position. It sounds like they’re saying, ‘Some criminals are able to spend their time in jail in conditions that aren’t awful and dangerous, isn’t that terrible? You should be angry about that.’
The stance I was taking is that if we’re going to be mad about something, it should be that jails are so awful by default.
This seems to suggest that low-effort, generic solutions don’t work, but that more personalized, targeted solutions tailored to the individual are effective. That tracks with what I think we all would assume to be true.
I think it’s also worth noting that the article is talking about jails, not prisons. In theory, criminals sentenced to time in jail, rather than prison, would be the prime candidates for a focus on reducing recidivism, rehabilitation, and re-integration into society.
Well it’s fine to have the sentiment you have (no violence in jails) but I’m really interested in how you’d propose to achieve that?
Well, you’re completely missing the point of the comment you were originally replying to, so this is really another topic entirely. I don’t have all the answers, but there are other countries who seem to have it closer to figured out than we do, so we could start by taking notes from them. Acting like this is an unsolvable problem isn’t helping anything.
What was the point of your comment then? I’m sorry I missed it.
Tangentially then, I’d suggest to you that while it is useful to adopt more therapeutic models of inmate care through a rehabilitation focused correctional centre, ultimately the effort required to change behaviour at the point of incarceration is inordinate. (Take a read: https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112833)
Crime (and violence) is and remains a social problem and directing funding and effort near the end of a criminal episode (at the point of incarceration) is not as effective as providing a decent social safety net that provides for a stable household and gives children a chance denied to their parents. (Old paper but gives you an idea as to the complexity and unreliability of solving this: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/171676.pdf)
If I have given the impression that I think this is unsolvable I apologise, that’s not at all my position.
The original comment was really just intended to point out the shit take in the article. It spends a lot of time talking about how bad people can pay money to get jail accommodations that are less awful, but its tone is overwhelmingly that the problem is that nicer accommodations are available for people who pay (which I do agree should not be a thing), but its implication is that everyone should have to be subject to the same awful conditions, not that the conditions should be improved for everyone regardless of their economic position. It sounds like they’re saying, ‘Some criminals are able to spend their time in jail in conditions that aren’t awful and dangerous, isn’t that terrible? You should be angry about that.’
The stance I was taking is that if we’re going to be mad about something, it should be that jails are so awful by default.
I don’t have access to this journal, unfortunately.
This seems to suggest that low-effort, generic solutions don’t work, but that more personalized, targeted solutions tailored to the individual are effective. That tracks with what I think we all would assume to be true.
I think it’s also worth noting that the article is talking about jails, not prisons. In theory, criminals sentenced to time in jail, rather than prison, would be the prime candidates for a focus on reducing recidivism, rehabilitation, and re-integration into society.