The Largest Prison Strike In American History Goes Ignored By US Media
deathandtaxesmag.com
deathandtaxesmag.com
This was covered in the NY Times. The articles were published on the same day.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/us/16prison.html
Edit-- Actually, this was covered in the NYT 4 days ago, and the article was submitted to Hacker News and ignored:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1996994
Plus, the issue of it being "ignored by US media" is not covered by the article in anything resembling an intellectual way, and merely serves as a sensational hook to get people reading a story already covered by other sources.
http://www.southernstudies.org/2010/12/georgia-prisoner-stri...
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=georgia_prison_strike_in...
It's an easy angle to drum up interest in the story and pander to your readers by making them think they're getting the "real" story.
Also, what would constitute mentioning this lack of coverage in a fashion "resembling an intellectual way"? News stories have hooks and further reading. The problem is...?
The first step to an intellectual approach is to actually approach the issue, which this article doesn't.
You would start with a more accurate description of the actual press coverage received, establishing some empirical expectation and an explanation of why this expectation was not met. The author leaves it to the reader to imagine what coverage actually means. What would have constituted adequate coverage? How does this coverage compare to coverage of other major stories? Many articles will have poor and vague answers to these questions. This article doesn't even attempt them.
The next basic question to address is "why was the coverage expectation not met." The author provides only once sentence in the entire article that is even remotely related to this question ("Perhaps there was..."), and it's merely speculation that encourages the reader to imagine all sorts of nefarious possibilities. One possibility is that people just don't care that much. As I mentioned, the article was submitted to hacker news and ignored until some ridiculous bait was added to the headline.
In intellectual article would have done some sort of investigation of those questions as an absolute minimum.
I hadn't thought about that before, but that's a very interesting point. The fact that such a high percentage of the prison population is black makes it hit home a little harder.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
I'm sure the prisoners take the former interpretation that involuntary servitude was not specified as punishment and thus is unconstitutional.
Also, the 13th amendment absolutely bans slavery, so if you can construe characteristics of ownership then you could make it unconstitutional. Georgia also has a history of abusing the law to keep slavery in all but name going which would negatively impact the states' case in a non-southern court, and would make a good case as to the intent of Georgian legislation being to revive slavery. I mean when they're trying to put the Confederate flag back on their flag it gives a person pause as to the intent of not paying their labor. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85078,00.html
This is why most states pay their employees in prison a pittance rather than absolutely nothing. It avoids the issue entirely and makes it one of labor law.
Re-education through labor, not just for communists anymore!
It is also for capitalists. Georgia has a number of privately operated, for profit prisons. (It does not appear that any of them were involved in this strike.)
[ http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/Divisions/Corrections/PrivatePri... ] [ http://www.thegeogroupinc.com/ ] [ http://www.correctionscorp.com/ ]
"Contrary to the rosy picture of race embodied in Barack Obama's political success and Oprah Winfrey's financial success, legal scholar Alexander argues vigorously and persuasively that [w]e have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it. Jim Crow and legal racial segregation has been replaced by mass incarceration as a system of social control (More African Americans are under correctional control today... than were enslaved in 1850). Alexander reviews American racial history from the colonies to the Clinton administration, delineating its transformation into the war on drugs. She offers an acute analysis of the effect of this mass incarceration upon former inmates who will be discriminated against, legally, for the rest of their lives, denied employment, housing, education, and public benefits. Most provocatively, she reveals how both the move toward colorblindness and affirmative action may blur our vision of injustice: most Americans know and don't know the truth about mass incarceration—but her carefully researched, deeply engaging, and thoroughly readable book should change that."
If only they'd paid attention in their classes on the constitution... wait, all education for prisoners has been abolished, another thing they're protesting.
Involuntary servitude means you have no choice, not that you aren't fed in the process. Indeed, even slaves are usually fed and housed since they constitute an investment on their owners' part (usually not well fed or housed, of course). The camps where you were forced to work without eating were known as death camps, which fortunately would fall under the cruel and unusual punishment clause here.
Note all that extreme overcrowding, a lack of nutritious food as well as a lack of heating and cooling were mentioned in the demands. If they are correct, it's hard to imagine worse conditions aside from outright torture.
They are incarcerated for a reason (yes there are cases of innocence - but realistically, the majority of offenders are in there for a reason). Whether it was a crime out of necessity, passion or simply because the perpetrator was downright crazy - they committed a crime, and their legal rights should be minimized to a minimum without making it a case of human rights violations.
If a work or education program can be offered to help people possibly correct their lives, excellent - if rehabilitation is possible - great. But they should not have the same rights as regular law abiding citizens.
There are strict criteria, which you have to go out of your way to meet, that determine whether you're eligible to get in to a prison. It's easy to make the argument that everybody there is there by choice.
It's insane.
So while I agree the demands are reasonable, I'm not (yet) convinced that they needed to be made or that they are ignored.
(Except for the fruits/vegetables, because realistically while they may ask for it, they aren't going to eat it.)
We do not rehabilitate prisoners. We have a ridiculous recidivism rate (60%+ depending on your data, demographic, etc).
We have the highest amount of citizens in prison then any Western country.
If the Mandatory Minimum Federal laws for drugs were flipped with actual State Violent crimes, we would have a much better society.
I would love to see inmates having the ability to pursue a trade, learn programming, learn a skill which Trumps their felony..which is incredibly difficult. Felon's are obligated by law to note if they have been Charged with a Felony (depending on the wording, for example: "convicted in the last 7 years" you may mark NO if, it has in fact, been 8).
Something that may be of interest.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/2008/02/getting_out_life_after...
The US would have no slaves to work with!
edit: Since I'm being downmodded for stating fact:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=82... http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/slavery-in-u-s-prison-sys... http://newworkerfeatures.blogspot.com/2010/02/us-prison-labo... http://www.insideprison.com/prison-industry-labor.asp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwT6CisM0mU
There was also a great wikipedia article listing all the different things that inmates make. If they refuse, they're subjected to solitary confinement.
The US should be thoroughly ashamed. Not that it'll ever be reported by the mainstream media.
The real reason is because you immediately lose a political argument if you're accused of being soft on crime. So there's absolutely no reasoned debate on the topic, the only time it comes up is when every so often a pol comes up with some dumbass punitive and counter-productive measure to get a headline. Additionally, most prisoners are black, and everyone knows this, while 80% of voters in most districts are white.
So basically, the way we're acting is both short-term stupid (could just pay day laborers and save money) and long-term stupid (creating lifetime criminals by destroying other options for them).
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/worl...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta...
Brings a whole new level to the saying "Always code as if the person who ends up maintaining your code is a violent psychopath who knows where you live."
It would be a breath of fresh air if we actually tried to rehabilitate people in prison to some degree. I don't know how far off that is, since a lot of people I've talked to seem to think that pretty horrible stuff like rape is part of ione's prison sentence.
I am. There's evidence that things are far worse than we complacently imagine. For example, a year or so ago there was a shocking multipart series on NPR about what's going on inside California's prisons. Mostly we just don't want to know.
The piece I remember most (not sure if this is the one) was where the reporter got caught in the middle of a lockdown in a crowded San Quentin gym (former gym, now dormitory because of overcrowding). When the alarms go off, everyone has to get on their hands and knees or the guards shoot them on sight. The reporter was told to keep standing during the whole episode, and everyone in the gym was staring at her. Unbelievable moment. I thought it was in this story but the transcript doesn't contain it. Perhaps it doesn't cover the whole audio or perhaps there are more pieces in the series.
This is why the first juries established jury nullification.
The reason judges don't want this fact brought up by counsel during court is because it would render the legal system meaningless... in general I think we'd all LIKE the jury focused on the law and the evidence, not their gut feelings.
This always comes up in discussions when we feel the law is unjust and the accused isn't getting a fair trial - but please consider, if counsel were allowed to bring this up in court and instruct the jury that, you know, regardless of what you have heard here, you can vote however you feel like it and, you know, nobody is allowed to give you shit over it afterwards.... that street runs both ways. You'd have people who DO deserve punishment getting off scott free.
Whatever's happening, they must have done something terrible to cause that.
Also of interest to Hackers, of course, is the suggestion that Old Media has ignored the strike. Why? It seems like terrific news fodder for the traditional Left and the traditional Right. This is very curious to me.
Everything else about the actual prison conditions and so on... Seems like "politics" to me unless there's an interesting new angle to it.
The story of the people behind this strike must be fascinating.
It seems, surprising as it may appear, possible the correctional system is actually correcting something.
It helps to supplement the (relatively) poor wages most guards receive.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/us/12prison.html Prisoners Strike in Georgia
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/us/16prison.html Some Georgia Inmates Return to Work
“Repression Breeds Resistance”
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/14/prisoner_advocate_ela...
Besides, many programmers have a libertarian bent, and locking people up, often for questionable stuff, and treating them like dirt rankles. Not that many of them don't deserve to be worked to pay back societal debt. But don't abuse them and feed them junk.
Then why are all the comments about the politics?
(Yes, I know I'm answering your rhetorical question).
FALSE
I posted this NYT article 4 days ago. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1996994
That death+taxes site set off all kinds of propaganda alarms in my head, and a 5-second google search debunked the initial assertion.
I'm very disappointed with Hacker News.
Make prison too cozy and beneficial, and you give an incentive for crime.
Also, an alternative cost-cutter to triple bunking prisoners is to incarcerate fewer people, by decriminalizing victim-less acts (cough cough).
I've heard the same argument for homelessness and their support structures - make homelessness too easy, who wants to work? I've always asked people who spout this nonsense to go take a look at a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen line - I regularly volunteer at both - and then come back and tell me with a straight face that anyone sane will deliberately put themselves in that situation.
I'd tell you do so for prison, but that's not really plausible short of actually ending up in the big house. So instead, I'll urge you to go talk to some people who have been in prison, and figure out a little bit of what happens there. It is not "fun", nor is it any place a sane person would willingly and deliberately put themselves.
If someone were to hurt or kill someone close to me, I would want him to go to prison for punishment, if we couldn't just kill him and be done with it.
When I think about this hypothetical person getting, say, programming lessons with my tax dollars, that only makes me angry.
I assume prisons are how they are in part because my attitude is fairly common.
None of the above diminishes the problems of wrongful convictions, cruel and unusual punishments, prison rape, victimless crimes, and so on.
> When I think about this hypothetical person getting, say, programming lessons with my tax dollars, that only makes me angry.
Option B) Rehabilitation. Show compassion and understanding, maybe make the guy a skilled tradesman. Now he's much less likely to kill again, because he has options aside from crime.
I choose B.
And this is why the justice system is about punishing people in regards to what is best for society and the community/public as a whole, not judgments based on the need for personal retribution.
If prisons aren't an adequate replacement for personal retribution, but a need for personal retribution still exists, the public will either correct the prisons or revert to their previous practices.
I'm all for certain aspects of prison reform, but we mess with their role as punishment at our peril.
As a side note, I suspect that the United States' use of the death penalty and comparatively poor prison conditions is largely due to its relatively recent history of vigilantism, the increased tendency of its people to distrust the government, and the relative predominance of firearms. The punishment aspect of prisons needs to be more pronounced in the United States than, say, Europe, in order to keep its citizenry content.
I suspect there's also regional variations - in states where distrust of governmental authority is more predominant and vigilantism more recent and frequent, prisons are harsher and the death penalty used more.
It is supported by the population which enjoys watching people get hurt playing football or smashed up driving fast cars in races, in lieu of gladiator fights to the death.
Speaking of which, in many prisons the guards stage gladiator fights* to the death between prisoners and take bets on who will win.
* http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/04/06/60II/main41867.sht... http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-72442.h... http://en.terra.com/latin-in-america/news/brutal_gladiator_s...
If you committed murder, rape, kidnapping, and really have no chance of ever reentering society, then it should be retribution. Basically how do we house these people for the rest of their lives in a cheap manner? And I really could care less about their wellbeing/condition.
If you commit a property crime (lets say you were stealing from a liquor store) or a drug crime, what is the real thing going on here? Are you desperate because you have no money and the easiest way to get some is to run around with a gun and rob people? In that case, rehabilition is a lot more useful. The person is only going to jail for 3-5 years and is going to have to come back into society and find a job and a way to live.
They get out of jail, are a felon, and now nobody will hire them. What do you think they are going to do? Go back to the only way they know how to make money which is to steal or deal drugs or something illegal to get by.
So to say we have to rehabilate murders is unpalatable to most people, and to say we have to punish people who are only going to jail becuase they are desperate to begin with is ignoring the underlying cause.
When you consider the socio-economic background of most crime (especially physical theft and violent crime) in almost every developed country, you kinda realize that not providing with them the skills to get employed when they get out is outright just daring them get back into the system.
You are right, there are limits. But these limits should not be set up by gut feelings. You gotta study the issue, and make the decision carefully to maximize good. Or else you end up with some hell hole of a system.
"Also, an alternative cost-cutter to triple bunking prisoners is to incarcerate fewer people, by decriminalizing victim-less acts (cough cough)."
That's what most of the prisoners are guilty of anyway.
"I believe prisoners do have minimal rights, and to the extent feasible, should get a decent meal and perhaps reading material. Weights and playgrounds? Not so much. They should be busting rocks or chopping wood, or something else that is not fun."
The prison system is too much geared toward either punishment or rehabilitation. The prime concern should be restitution toward the victims, to the fullest extent possible. Then, if possible, prisoners should work to offset the cost of their own incarceration (excluding victimless offenders). So, if the prisoner is able to perform valuable work for that purpose, he should be allowed to, if possible from the confines of the prison.
That said, punishment for punishment's sake is pure sadism. It only breeds hardier criminals. While it gives a victim some temporary relief, it creates future problems and future victims.
Somehow I doubt that..