Entrepreneurs in Prison
kashflow.com
kashflow.com
Signed: Puzzled and curious.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Competence != total invulnerability. I can't fathom why anyone would argue it should.
http://www.amazon.com/Gang-Leader-Day-Sociologist-Streets/dp...
You're ignoring deterrence. And yes, deterrence works. I don't park in red zones all that often.
You're also ignoring the benefits of "warehousing". If person A commits an assault a week, general society avoids an assault every week that person A is in jail.
You can argue that the cost exceeds the benefit, but you don't get to ignore the benefit.
> At one point in our history the criminal justice discussions were about how best to rehabilitate the offender rather than punishment.
Yes, that's what they talked about, but what did they accomplish?
Well, let me back up a little first. Criminal penalties as deterrent do work up to a certain point, and there is nothing wrong with embracing them to a civilized and practical degree. But the retributive nature of the American justice system is beyond fetishistic. This is harmful for two reasons.
First, evidence suggests that draconian penalties are counterproductive as a deterrent. The exact psychological reasons for this are being researched, but it is thought that it is a matter of respect for the rule of law. When people perceive a law as unjust and disproportionate, they are more likely to break that law, and that applies to the punishment as well as the crime. It seems paradoxical, but increasing the penalty for a crime beyond what people view as equitable will actually reduce the deterrent effect of the penalty.
Second, we as a society have become so obsessed with retributive sentencing that we will, to that end, actively cut programs that are proven to reduce crime. Any program that helps felons to get legitimate work once they are out of prison is likely to be attacked as "soft on crime" and "wasteful", even though such programs are usually relatively inexpensive and actually save the government money in the long run by reducing recidivism.
It is not hard to understand why giving ex-convicts non-criminal career opportunities is good for society, yet the idea that we should at least throw a couple of bones in that direction is actually quite controversial.
First, most prisoners are not drug kingpins, they are people that do drugs to the point of not being able to control their lives, or people who commit violent crimes for nonsensical reasons or people who steal large or small sums of money. Many are people you would literally be scared to see in public.
Second, entrepreneurial prisoners like drug dealers are dealing drugs because they do not view risk the same way normal people do. They are in prison because they decided to take an illegal path toward making money knowing that it was easier than working.
Third, VCs will have a tough time explaining to their LPs about how they finance criminals. Even worse would be a VC’s risk if they finance one and the business fails and they have to explain it to their LP.
Forth, a really tough thing about starting a business is getting various people in the industry to work with you. Being a past prisoner is likely to be a burden in those relationships.
Fifth, them getting state/national licenses that may be required to start various businesses will be very challenging.
There are exceptions, like there are with every rule, but this is a tough sell. I could see a very small number of people being helped this way, but I genuinely feel like it would be tough. There are so many great people working toward businesses with no criminal background, it seems strange to try to put the effort in to people that have made no effort for themselves.
When someone goes to prison it's generally for a good reason, after the jury and trial and all that, it's safe to say then that these people forfeit their rights. That's what happens when you go against the rules of a society you belong to. I think everyone can agree with that. The trick is balance, sure it's not fair to blanket treat inmates all the same, however they cost us money to not just capitol-punishment the lot of them (a bad idea for moral reasons.) So they need to pay off their debt. But to go as far as to say they should be treated as if being away from everyone is their only punishment and that's already bad enough is a bit naive. Many people in prison did really bad things, like rape and murder, try telling the victims family in those cases that the inmate that killed their kid gets to get an education, a job, some savings for his release, cable TV, food, etc, etc. Tell them that and see what reaction you get.
To be completely fair they did bad things, we need to keep that in mind, also the cheap labor could be used to help society. Cheap furniture/clothing/household items, etc for low income families comes to mind.
I think the real solution is to be transparent about how much things cost, and we need to keep in mind that we can't allow for slave labor of prisoners just for those profits to go into CEO's pockets. If we are to do that then it needs to go to the potential rehabilitation of the inmate, and in dropping the costs so lower income people can save money on essentials that are made by inmates hands.
PS: This is definitely one of the most thought provoking articles relating to inmates I've read in a long time.
We have to leave aside two unanswered statements in your comment: how many people in prison actually deserve to be there, and how many of their rights prisoners surrender by being convicted of a crime. I'd argue that one's human rights don't ever get revoked, but that's just me.
What is the purpose of prison? I'd argue that it's a dual purpose: punishment and rehabilitation.
Being away from everyone you've ever loved or known is a terrible punishment. Once you walk out of a prison years after you went in the world will have changed out from under you. Your babies are grown and won't know you. Your parents might have died. Your friends' lives have moved on without you. The rhythms of daily life are now foreign to you. The particulars of any specific penitentiary system might make this easier (visitation, parole, etc.), but this is pretty horrible.
Why does someone commit a crime? Unless they are mentally unbalanced (which, in the US, is served by separate processes... e.g. pleading insanity), they have behaviors that are unacceptable outside of a set of social norms. Giving someone the opportunity to learn what society expects of them should be part of being in prison. Isn't education a great way to figure that out? Why should we be against someone trying to turn their life around after making some terrible choice? (Again, leaving aside questions of over-eager judicial systems e.g. the US' war on drugs)
I would say in regards to rehabilitation that we teach them exactly what they need to know about society in order to cope with coming back in, I do agree that if someone spent that long without freedom, and they served their time, then they should be free when they get out, with all rights given back.
I get that it's a terrible punishment to, sometimes worse then death for people that enjoy their freedom, I would argue that we continue to evolve what is the "correct" length of time for people to be in prison for one. And yeah we shouldn't be against someone turning their life around, but not to the extent that we waste resources on people getting a second chance, when there's a plethora of people still waiting for their first chance.
Jury nullification: Discrimination in some form or another plays such a large role in who goes to prison that we actually have a term in th U.S. for the process of trying to combat it with what amounts to legal civil disobedience.
When a regime falls: I have heard it said that when a regime falls, the first thing that gets done is to release all the prisoners. Why? Because being in prison isn't about being a bad person. It is about violating the rules.
I knew a man for a time who went to prison in his youth for his political activism. He was extremely idealistic. Like me, he was prone to being too honest for his own good. He was very clear that laws are written by humans and there is nothing inherently moral about them. They are, at best, only as wise and moral as the authors. Unfortunately, in most cases they are less wise and moral than that since getting passed at all may involve politicking and compromise. And in many case they are writen with no intent to be "fair" (such as Jim Crow laws).
Best of luck in coming to some meaningful, informed conclusions.
As a woman, here is one example I am painfully aware of: A woman who defends herself with lethal force against a husband who has beaten her for years does more time on average than an abusive husband who finally goes too far and beats his wife to death. I can explain some of the reasons why that happens if you care to hear it. But the reasons do not change the fact that injustices happen daily in our legal system and many of our laws foster those injustices, to say nothing of the biases of judges and juries.
Peace.
Also, I would appreciate it a lot of you did go into details about the wife versus husband abuse. Seems to me that the only answer to that is sexism though. For many years it's been held in certain groups that women being the child bearing gender and men being the "bread winners" meant that men were somehow above women. In many area's of the world it's much worse then others but regardless you see that everywhere. It would seem to go without saying that that's wrong, but I'm speaking as a man who respects people equally, and leaves it to each individual to prove to me their merit. A whole ton of people think that their race is best, and that their gender is best, for reasons they all think are good. It makes me wonder how we might be able to change this, I feel it starts with leading by example.
The details:
You do more time if it is premeditated vs. a crime of passion. You do more time if you used a weapon vs. your bare hands. Most of the time, an abusive husband who kills his wife beats her to death with his bare hands. Most of the time, a woman who finally kills her husband to protect herself had to plan it and used a weapon to accomolish it. Men frequently have a size advantage and are also more likely to have served in the military, taken martial arts or otherwise be better prepared to do physical harm than a woman. The law currently does a poor job of accounting for such differences.
That is without getting into what happens if the judge or one of the lawyers is a wife beater. Edit: That is also without getting into other relevant factors, which don't get properly considered under the current system.
Peace.
That said...
If you premeditate kill someone then you did NOT do it to protect yourself from harm. At that moment you can and should leave and get help from whoever can help you. Restraining orders to start off with, and carry a weapon around for self defense, entirely different then premeditated murder.
That all said the current system is without a doubt messed up, our high crime rate is proof of that. What's scarier is how much crime goes un-caught.
I am not some man hating bitch. I'm quite fond of men. And I don't know how to fix this particular problem with the justice system. All I am saying is that doing time is not the ultimate proof that someone is depraved. It is more complicated than that.
Peace and carry on. I am not interested in being nailed to the wall with ugly insinuations and it looks to me like that is where this is going/has already gone to some degree.
I think we think we aren't agreeing, when in reality we agree much more then we realize, but I digress. Someone having been to prison doesn't mean they are depraved, BUT and this is a part I agree is complicated, we as a society need to be sending only the truly depraved to prison. Otherwise it's not about keeping the rest of us safe, it's about something like money, or some such.
Please accept my dearest apology, I don't mean to say that I'm sorry you were offended though, but to say that I'm sorry I said something offensive.
Fwiw: I think a better answer lies in providing more support for children and families. I typically focus more on providing parenting advice to people with really challenging children in hope of preventing the types of problems that lead to criminal charges rather than addressing what to do after everything has gone wrong. However I am currently homeless, which has me spending more time around very poor people, many of whom have done time. And this crowd references prison differently than the middle and upper middle class people I typically have been surrounded by.
Anyway, time to go eat. Have a great day.
That a small minority of prisoners
"...and pounce on another's freedom to pursue happiness and such."
Although that may or may not catch many more in your definition.
I suppose in my mind we need to do it in an order like this, first change who is getting arrested, then decide if those people deserve minimum wage, etc.
That said, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea. But, as a tax-payer, the idea that someone is getting free room and board on my dime while they make a good income grates a bit. What does it cost to keep someone incarcerated for a year these days? $40k? If the inmate were to repay this -- the sort of rent and bills every other entrepreneur has to pay -- then the idea would be more palatable.
So yeah, I feel any productive activity is a damn good idea.
Maybe some kind of Mechanical Turk esque web site where their earnings get paid out to them upon release?
Or some kind of Learnable tailored to inmates?
Any ideas, people? :)
There are two kinds of criminals: the ones that do it because they were desperate, and the ones that are mentally ill and not only can't see risk but can't see why it's wrong to kill another person for money or turf.
The desperate ones would truly like to have a normal life and a job, but some of then were born SOL into crack houses and abusive fathers. The psychopaths come from every social class, I meet this guy in college who had rich parents and still was trying to push X all over the place.
I could be way off, but the scenario he posits, wherein all hits mates are buying weed and he arbitrages, is probably not how most drug dealers come into operation, and certainly not how I suspect the prison-time crowd got into it.
I think he is Duane Jackson, the author. He seems to be banned for some reason.
Duane, you can create a new account in no time.
While I'm at it, someone is free to recommend to me the appropriate etiquette for responding to the same question in multiple threads.
(I can't reply to the dead comment though.)
Thanks.
In urban environments, drug dealers are more plentiful, work on slimmer margins and operate in a riskier environment. In more cases than not, the drug dealers that are dealing with enough volume to catch prison time are those attached to gangs, or out of necessity to stay above the poverty line.
The picture painted in the article, at least to me, is perhaps the most likely way for middle class white kids to end up in prison for drug dealing, but most drug sentences serious enough to involve prisons don't go to middle class white kids, they go to urban blacks.
This isn't to say that the numbers are right, or fair, or necessarily representative of how the real world works -- but if we're talking about people in prison, this is more likely.
Most of what I said speaks in anecdotal language, but here are some numbers to back me up: http://www.jrsa.org/ibrrc/using-data/data_quality/data_eleme...
Have a great day.
I think pleading "necessity" sounds like excusing the actions. It's very very rarely neccesary to have to deal drugs or similar to stay above the poverty line. Especially here in the UK where unemployment benefits are fairly generous. Unless not having the latest pair of Nike Air Max equates to poverty.
As for my use of necessity, I certainly don't mean to excuse their actions -- perhaps 'believed necessity' would be more appropriate.
Last thing, I was also speaking specifically to what I know of American drug dealing, and I have absolutely zero knowledge of how well that information travels overseas.