The Governor of New York proposed giving prisoners in essence a community college education while incarcerated. Outcry from the public and lawmakers made him shelve the concept, despite studies showing massive drops in recidivism from such things.
The bible actually doesn't support the idea of prisons at all. If someone murders, then they need to be put to death. Otherwise, theft, drugs, and all other crimes are best handled outside of a prison system that does very little to help a person recover from their problems.
Christ advocated restoring a person. Secular governments advocate locking them up so they don't have to deal with it.
Are you a Christian fundamentalist? Well known examples include the Westbury Baptist Church and the Southern Baptist Convention. If you're not like those people then what you believe is irrelevant to what I'm talking about and I don't understand why you're acting offended.
If you're interested, you can read a bit of exposition on the role of the Christian Right in pushing for increasingly harsh punishment in the US: http://www.politicalresearch.org/2004/11/06/calvinism-capita... . Along related lines, I find myself disgusted by the zeal with which Christian fundamentalists engage in the corporal punishment of children, again with solid support from the Bible: http://zakherys.tripod.com/greven.htm
You're correct that the Bible doesn't advocate imprisonment: It goes further by supporting slavery, which combines the loss of personal liberty with the obligation of enforced labor. And while the penal systems of modern, enlightened countries do tend to aim at resocialization rather than vengeance, prisons in the American Bible Belt have re-introduced conditions strongly reminiscent of Biblical slavery. Coincidence? I think not.
However, I do consider myself a Christian - and looking at the 5 truths that make someone a "Fundamental Christian" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism#Christian) I certainly hold to all five.
However, it appears that the new meaning of "Fundamental Christian" you and some others have assigned actually has nothing to do with this standard definition - and is a often a warped, hateful, version of someone's own imagination.
The "Christian Right" is about as varied as the muslim world is. You have to understand that the only people you hear about are those that are doing it wrong. For example, no one cares about everyone walking normally - it's those that start fights that get the attention.
Anyway, "It goes further by supporting slavery" isn't true either. That is just a sensationalist claim based on the ancient history recorded in the old testament. Jesus and the apostles and prophets actually went the other way and said that Christians should serve others instead of themselves.
Slavery was abolished in Britain and America through work of Christians like William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King, Jr.
Robbing a bank for $1 is still a crime, though not as severe one as intended: http://volokh.com/2011/06/21/man-commits-1-robbery-to-get-he...
A similar case: http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2013/08/...
Career criminals do so as well, of course: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/on-purpose...
According to this local news story, 80% of inmates at one Colorado county jail are either mentally ill or have serious medical issues that are diagnosed on arrival: http://kdvr.com/2014/07/07/expensive-trend-people-committing...
I could go on and on about this :-(
The creation of the mental health system in the UK in the first place was a direct result of the observation that a large percentage of people incarcerated were mentally ill.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/timeline-mental-...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/12/w...
That already exists in our current prison system. Here in Toronto, 'criminals' are found every year standing beside broken windows of downtown businesses late at night because they couldn't stand the frigid cold and the homeless shelters were full. All they usually want is a warm place to sleep and some food that didn't come out of a dumpster.
While the prospect of running a lucrative commercial B&E enterprise with the "worst case scenario" including a college education might be tempting...
You will still be a known criminal to your family and friends, which will take years to change their opinion of you if at all possible. Nobody will feel comfortable leaving you alone in their home. Nobody will allow their children to approach you. Your options for employment will drop drastically once you are released from prison.
You will still lack freedom. Feel like taking a jog in the park? Not for another 10 years, you can't.
Etc.
If the above seem like a better scenario than your current situation, perhaps you need some guidance in a community college type setting.
The obvious solution is to make sure the same benefits are available to the general public without the requirement of criminality.
But I suppose you could say the same about prison, for some people.
Someone committing a nonviolent crime to get free room and board and college, of explained, sounds rather clever. Most people end up in significant debt for a similar outcome. (And low security prison in the US isn't so bad, about the same level as sharing a 2 star hotel room with a coworker, from what I've seen.)
> The majority of employers indicate that they would “probably” or “definitely” not be willing to hire an applicant with a criminal record.
I understand the desire to rehabilitate people, but when those in prison have more services and resources handed to them than the general population gets then there is a serious problem. If we started earlier in the education process and young students knew that they would be supported all the way through college / trade school / whatever, they would be far less likely to give up early thinking that they could never 'afford' to go to school so why bother.
http://www.reentryeducationnetwork.org/advocacy-platform.htm...
> New York State college in prison programs have also proven effective, with only 7.7% of incarcerated people who attended college classes re-incarcerated compared to the 29.9% recidivism rate of those who did not attend any college classes.
A 75% reduction in recidivism will pay for community college many, many times over. It's a tremendous net-win for the taxpayer, but our "hard on crime" attitudes prevent us from saving ourselves billions of dollars in damages, policing, legal costs, housing/feeding, etc.
Ignoring that, how about the effect that if you get caught for your crime you get a free college education? Wouldn't that remove some of the downside of a life of crime.
That's a problem if prison it to be primarily punitive. I'd prefer it were rehabilitative, and thus focused on "what's the best way to turn this person into a productive, positive member of society once released?" I'd also prefer a basic, community college-level education be available to all, not just the incarcerated.
(I had wondered how self selection factored into the numbers...edit to add: I did not mean to suggest that the 40% I quote is directly comparable to the numbers in your post, I meant to share the factoid that the effect was strong when a quality control for self selection was present)
Now there's an idea. Do both, give education away to everyone, including inmates.
During my parents younger days, here in Australia, a university education came at no cost to the individual. Sounds like a reasonable sort of scenario I reckon.
Turned out to be a pretty good investment for HMG going by the amount of tax I have paid... :-)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/us/in-riverside-california...
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/01/14/new-mexico-ma...
http://www.elpasotimes.com/latestnews/ci_26100843/aclu-woman...