When a Cartoonist Landed in L.A. County Jail, She Drew What She Saw
laweekly.com
laweekly.com
This is one of the parts of prisons I find particularly distressing. I'm trying to find (but can't recall the name of the company) an article, perhaps posted here a few months ago, about a company that handles inmate "bank accounts". The percentage they took was absurd. Between what the financial company took and the prisons, $100 sent to a prisoner might end up only being $50 by the time they could spend it. Paired with the high prices in the commissary they can barely afford "essentials".
EDIT: JPay. Here's an article, but not the one I was looking for:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/09/30/15761/prison-banke...
My father is currently in a federal prison. I do not want to reveal sentencing, names, etc. but I deal with Jpay on a daily basis.
Their core currency is 'stamps' if you are technologically literate.
It is $4.50 to be able to buy 12 'stamps'
It takes one stamp to send an email, plus one stamp per attachment.
Beyond this, there are music 'credits', video call 'credits', etc.
It is a fucking racketeering ring. I literally keep a Windows laptop so that I can have video calls with my father because its incompatible with OSX and Linux (Ubuntu 14.04 in my case)
Would love to hear a way to make a difference here...I've thought of nothing.
Your best bet is to find an existing rights group to pursue the changes. It will be a hard sell since the US moved to a private system. This means that the states and fed will have less direct control of things. More red tape and contract negotiations.
1) Treatment of prisoners
2) Number of people in prison
As a country we need to improve treatment and reduce the number of people imprisoned quickly.
If there is anyone located in San Francisco or northern south bay that wants to get together and do a hackathon with the focus of building something that generates either awareness or solves a particular problem we should meet up for coffee. I can meet anywhere in the Mission to discuss it. (Contact info in profile). I am currently swamped running my business but I would figure out a way to take a weekend off to build something.
The county jail referenced in this piece is almost certainly not privately owned.
If you're fine hanging out with a mix of Christians, Agnostics and Atheists who occasionally quote scripture in support of their cause, check out the Quaker Prison Fellowship.
[1] rhetorical question; we know, more or less, where the money goes.
[2] prison is usually more expensive
Show us? It's publically available information I guess, where can we read about it?
The point is that running a jail should be easy on $250/day/person-in-jail (or more!). The cost of bulk toothbrushs or ramen is basically in the noise. It says a lot about the character and values of a person that would choose to pocket this kind of spare change just to make their income very slightly bigger.
Reading the Red State article, I get a sense that the author is walking a tightrope to frame the argument in terms that conservatives would favor:
>I have relatively little sympathy for violent criminal offenders in terms of the punishments they receive.
>However, all these efforts are opposed by powerful interest groups that give almost invariably to Democrats – including police and jailer unions who want to protect the jobs of their members.
>I am not advocating for free HBO for all prisoners and for government sponsored gender reassignment surgery or anything of the like
And so forth. He pretty much covers all the bases. I think that shows a high level of awareness. I also think that going to such lengths suggests a strong desire for reform to actually occur (disclaimer: I had never heard of the author before reading the article).
I feel like I should add, conservatives are in no way unique in demanding that scary ideas come with a popsicle. I personally prefer cherry.
[0] http://www.redstate.com/2014/12/18/americas-desperate-need-p...
Right now we have another government regulated and implemented disaster. People bitch and moan over the issues the VA has and that institution is supposed to HELP people, yet they don't want to look at the penal system which is supposed to help society. Both are examples of a government to big to be held responsible. Both are just minor examples of government regulation permitting abuse and neglect.
Yet people want more regulation, more government, and such. Why should government improve when you want them to step in and do everything you don't like being done by others (internet, health, etc) We get what we deserve
http://www.elanapritchard.com/2014/12/jail-comics-deleted-sc...
In other words, in accordance with basic human rights, they're innocent as their accuser has not yet proven their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
By beating it into the minds of everyone (especially in more privileged classes who won't come within 500 feet of somebody who has seen the inside of a jail in their lifetime) of how absolutely dehumanising prison is, we could maybe stop demanding people be thrown into jail for 25 years.
Really, no.
If we're going to spend the effort and money to incarcerate someone for that long, I don't see how turning it into intensive therapy instead is any more work -- and it's certainly more beneficial to society.
There is certainly a case to be made that he is too dangerous to let outside, no way I will disagree with that notion. But having him fight for toilet paper is pointless cruelty, and there is no sense in fighting the pointless cruelty of killing with pointless cruelty poor living conditions.
Using Breivik as an example does not further the discussion though, as it is such an extreme case. It's fear mongering, and you're disregarding Hegelian dialectics by arguing in such logical extremes. I think we can all agree that lobbing the dysfunctioning members of society together in a desensitized and unsanitary confined area is no way to produce functioning, productive members of society.
As far as whether punishment 'makes sense', that depends on what moral system you use. I wouldn't treat it as so obvious.
Yes it does. "deserves" very much alludes to revenge, not rehabilitation.
"As far as whether punishment 'makes sense', that depends on what moral system you use. I wouldn't treat it as so obvious."
Everything depends on everything; could you elaborate? Just to further the discussion a bit. Being a deterrent has nothing to do with morals, which I see as the main argument for punishment so I'm curious where you're getting at.
Possibly revenge. You might want nobody to ever face that person again, etc. Even if it's revenge that doesn't mean you want them to suffer in any particular way. Take away their freedom and turn them into an inert ignorable abstract in a box somewhere. You could stick them in an average motel room and the result would be the same.
>could you elaborate?
Just as an example, Christianity is pretty big on the concept of retribution. While it does say that it's God's job rather than man's, that doesn't change that it declares bad people deserve punishment independent of the deterrence factor.
That's...debatable, and varies considerably between different approaches to Christianity, even within individual denominations/sects.
> While it does say that it's God's job rather than man's, that doesn't change that it declares bad people deserve punishment independent of the deterrence factor.
This is only true of Christianity in general if you define "bad people" extremely broadly; Christianity in general holds that essentially infinite punishment is deserved by (or, in some formulations, the natural consequence of) sin, of which all humans [0] are guilty. Christianity is -- in pretty much all formulations -- very much about God eliminating this deserved punishment or bearing (through Christ) in the place of sinners this natural cost.
So, one could argue at least as convincingly (if not more) that the central theme of Christianity is refraining from retribution even where it is "deserved" as one could argue that "Christianity is pretty big on the concept of retribution".
[0] with either 1 or 2 (exactly, not as a figurative form for "a small number") exceptions, ever
>refraining from retribution
That's very true, but the important thing here is that it's deserved in the first place.
I don't think that's the important thing here; I think that whether it is appropriate for any person to exact it is at least as important in discussing whether punishment (which is an action) "makes sense". Even if a cost is viewed as earned within a moral system, if that moral system equally holds that it is immoral for any person to impose that cost on the one that deserves it, retributive punishment does not make sense in that moral system.
I guess this thread of discussion is getting moot and semantic, but I do find it curious that someone would say "that person deserves to be in a motel room", without that motel room indicating some kind of punishment (revenge). "deserves" indicates that he should suffer somehow, i maintain.
> Just as an example, Christianity is pretty big on the concept of retribution. While it does say that it's God's job rather than man's, that doesn't change that it declares bad people deserve punishment independent of the deterrence factor.
Excellent point! You are speaking in strictly logical terms though, which is why i referenced dialectics earlier. It is very hard to discuss this subject meaningfully if you're ignoring all the intricacies of real life. I.e. we do not send people to prison to do gods job of retribution.
And yes it's not done to take away God's job, but many people will tell you a key part of prison is retribution.
And yes it's not done to take away God's job, but many people will tell you a key part of prison is retribution.
And yes it's not done to take away God's job, but many people will tell you a key part of prison is retribution.
And yes it's not done to take away God's job, but many people will tell you a key part of prison is retribution.
And yes it's not done to take away God's job, but many people will tell you a key part of prison is retribution.
And yes it's not done to take away God's job, but many people will tell you a key part of prison is retribution.
"makes sense" has nothing to do with morality. It's to do with likely outcomes and cost. Also, if your "morality" is based on revenge, it's not moral.
I was supporting the grandparent post's suggestion that maybe some people to deserve to be in prison. The argument against this is implicitly an argument that no-one deserves to be imprisoned, and such an argument may be refuted by showing a single instance of someone who deserves imprisonment.
an animator in LA can't pay for a lawyer to fight 2 month of jail (i.e. supposedly something relatively minor). Are animators there doing that bad? (i'd expect it to be more like programmers in SV)
Also, anecdotal evidence from friends in the digital animation field (think Pixar, Dreamworks, etc) is that even those jobs can be relatively low paying for years because they are dream jobs, hence high supply of workers.
Without knowing socio-economic background and life history, I could easily see a creative type in LA choosing a short jail term over the financial hit.
The ideal career path for an ambitious, hard-working, and politically savvy animator is to switch over to the producer track as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
Also, think about going to jail for 2 months. 2 months where you're locked up and have absolutely no liberty. If this thing was minor, there's still 2 months you'll never get back. Not to mention the job you probably lose during this stint. I don't wish prison sentences to anybody, not even my worst enemies.
I wouldn't feel as bad that we feel so strongly about locking people up if the conditions weren't so absolutely awful. I'm sure there's a way to make prisons more survivable without sacrificing the "making sure people are inside the box"-ness.
There is no argument what jail time is bad. It is the offense that seems to be minor (and thus easy to fight for a lawyer) - while IANAL, my understanding from what i see and hear around, misdemeanor resulting in 2 months of county jail without a lawyer is really not that big a deal, on par with second DUI, something what with a lawyer can be on the scale of like a month or two of community service, etc...
After googling around, i even more convinced that not having a lawyer (whether by choice or due to not being able to afford it) was her great misfortune as while legally she seems to be a violator, personally i got the impression that at the social level she was kind of a victim, or more precisely she happened to be too weak for (and was broken by) the relationships and the people (much higher-ups in her professional and social hierarchy) she allowed herself to be involved with. Basically she needs counseling, and instead the society comes with all the power of law upon her and throws her in jail (the events do seems to had gotten somewhat out of hands, so something needed to be done, the issue here is what should have been done - the good lawyer would probably was able to turn it into correctional/rehabilitation/treatment direction instead of the pure punitive).
A lot of the work is seasonal at best; you're hired for the duration of one production, and let go when it's over. If the show gets renewed and the folks running it like you you may get offered your job back next year.
You can make a decent living but not working for Bakshi or Kricfalusi; you work for those two because you want the prestige of Having Worked Under A Legend. Or because you worked with them back in the day, have a decent amount of money to fall back on, and they've approached you with a new project that will give you a lot of creative freedom because they trust your sensibility.
(I mostly worked for John K when I was hanging around the industry, so I saw this first-hand.)