My ex was a correctional officer and the problem was how many female guards fucked/had babies with the male inmates. It was a huge problem.

Now that was a min fuck.

Who was it that suggested a simple buried wire perimeter fence and a bomb collar around each inmates neck?

First off we need to stop jailing people for stupid shit. If your crime doesnt involve violence or possible violence like DUI/firing a gun in the air you dont need to be thrown into prison.

I can see a combo debtors prison/halfway house for financial crimes and theft.

As for prison, some people need killing, some people need to be locked away forever, but most need to be punished and rehabilitated if possible.

And being punished shouldnt include having taxpayers pay two deputies to transport your incarnated ass halfway across the state to fuck your wife's incarcerated ass.

Aside from supermax and high security prisons I think prisons should be work farms, you raise food, you break rocks, you learn a fucking marketable skill and dont sit on your ass watching tv

I agree with lujlp. I disagree that drugs should earn you a prison term. I also believe if you are there for a violent or theft related crime you deserve to be there and should be little to no freedom. You should be working to self sustain not add more to tax payers bills.

Aside from supermax and high security prisons I think prisons should be work farms, you raise food, you break rocks, you learn a fucking marketable skill and dont sit on your ass watching tv.

Took the words right out of my mouth. And again, people should not be in prison for things that are not crimes to begin with...too many ppl in prison in america who have not committed any crime and are there because of the crappy system especially because of unproven allegations and a crappy "guilty until proven innocent doctrine"(like soviet russia) for certain categories of offences.

The line should be drawn at the entrance to the prison. Prisoners on the inside, civilians on the outside. And yes to the previous comments about nonviolent offences and drug possession.

The NYT's poster girl has been married for 4 months to a guy with a 60 year stretch--he's been in prison since 2008. If she's that dumb/addled/bereft of common sense, she should think twice about dragging a kid into the mess. The NYT doesn't bother with pesky details about how she met him, why she married him, what his crime was, etc..

Oops--sorry--he's in for rape, arson and aggregated assault. Yes, let's spread his DNA around.

Agree totally with loojy's comments. You're being PUNISHED.

Exactly, KateC. I'm sympathetic to somebody who's been married a long time whose husband or wife goes to prison. Marrying a con who's got 60 years of time ahead of him? This man is not one you use as a sperm bank.

Although, I should say, while I'm sympathetic, I, too, tend to agree with luj.

Ppen touched on something a few threads back that I meant to comment on but didn't get to in time. Civilization has found, through long painful experience, that it is necessary to suppress the primitive modes of sexual expression in order for a society to function. And with male sexuality, we have largely done that: the male primitive mode of promiscuity and pump-and-dump is sharply constrained by mores and in some cases by law. Although, there is a small group of men who are largely excepted. by virtue of their social status. This has always been a sub rosa truth, but it has never been as out in the open as it is now.

With female sexuality, we have quit doing that. Society no longer condemms women who engage in hypergamy or nomadic motherhood. In fact, postmodern feminism outright encourages and rewards it. The problem with that is that there is no longer any reward to men for gentlemanly behavior. When women don't choose civilized men, we can expect the proportion of such men in society to drop.

A basic rule of dealing with hard-core Cluster B's is that any privilge they are granted, they will abuse. Because that's just how they roll. For the hard-core incarcerated, there is no benefit, either to the prisoner or to society, in granting them privileges of any kind. It isn't going to change their behavior. Once the criminal justice process has been properly executed and the conclusion is pretty certain, society has no obligation to them beyind basic standards of humane treatment. They aren't rehabilitatble and wishful thinking isn't going to make it otherwise.

That said, as others up-thread have pointed out, there are lots of people imprisoned in the U.S. who are not hard-core sociopaths. Many of them present no threat to society and don't need to be in prison. This is, in part, another aspect of something I've harped on before -- law is not a moral code, and it can't be. I can morally condemn the actions of the street hooker or the small-time drug dealer without demanding that the law get involved. They certainly don't regard the law as morality -- they regard it as just an inconvenience.

The pseudonymous Bert Burykill was in and out of prisons for years, and has some interesting observations about conjugal visits:

One of the most counterintuitive things about prisons in New York is that special sexytime conjugal visits are only allowed at maximum-security prisons. As a rule of thumb, you go to a max for a violent crime, or if your sentence is six or more years. When you get down under five years to your earliest release you might get transferred to a medium, which means you lose your trailer visits and your pussy rights. I was locked up in a medium with a guy about my age who was smaller than me (about five foot five) and borderline retarded, but (no homo) a good-looking fellow. He was serving a ten flat, so he started out at Clinton (a max) where he bagged a hunch-backed six-foot Amazonian with a gorilla jaw who was at least ten years older than him, and they made a kid. By the time he was with me at the medium the kid was like five years old and his dad had been in prison his whole life. That is not a good system, and it happens all too often. . . .

Ideally, work release and furloughs would be extended to more lower-security inmates so people could try to keep their lives together, but the stupid penologists f*** that up, too. It’s almost a daily occurrence in prison that someone’s wife leaves him, or his kid gets so angry at him that the kid doesn’t want to talk anymore. Prison ruins people’s lives. The saddest part is that once a woman on the outside can’t take the loneliness anymore and decides to f*** someone else, and the relationship becomes strained beyond repair, it’s ultimately the children who will suffer in the long run.

There is no denying that prisons are directly correlated to the high rates of kids growing up in single-parent households in certain high-crime neighborhoods. It’s a downward spiral that won’t fix itself. Lots of times, I think just spending one night together could remind a lot of separated-by-incarceration couples why they love each other and potentially provide the glue to save relationships and strengthen communities.

tl;dr The conjugal visits are given to the wrong prisoners, the long-term guys, rather than the shorter term ones who are more likely to need integration into the community. It's perverse public policy.

"The conjugal visits are given to the wrong prisoners, the long-term guys, rather than the shorter term ones who are more likely to need integration into the community. It's perverse public policy."

I wasn't aware that this was the way it worked. And I can sort of believe the phenomonea discussed. A lady I respect, who has a Ph.D. in criminal justice, once told me: "The problem with trying to rehabilitate criminals is that most of them were never habilitated in the first place." As much of a hard-ass as I am towards the career criminal, I acknowledge that there are a lot of people in prison who are not career criminals, but they keep winding up in prison because they never see any other possible path.

I'd save a few rooms in those prisons for the worst white collar criminals. They are just as sociopathic as the those who rob us with their guns.

I'd save a few rooms in those prisons for the worst white collar criminals. They are just as sociopathic as the those who rob us with their guns. -- jerry at January 29, 2014 9:43 AM

I don't think any of us are arguing against putting white collar criminals away for a a long time. Bernie Madoff deserves to be buried under the jail. But Martha Stewart went up for six months for perjury and not the financial wheeling dealing.

As far as the conjugal visits -- why? What do they really improve.

If they are gone the really old residents will talk about "back when". The new ones will just have to fucking deal with it.

"But Martha Stewart went up for six months for perjury and not the financial wheeling dealing."

Actually, as I understand the case, it wasn't even perjury. She was convicted of "making a false statement", which basically means telling a government person anything they don't want to hear. She was not under oath at the time. This is one reason you never talk to cops. (And in this sense, the word "cop" includes investigators, district attorneys, and pretty much anyone who works for a law enforcement agency.)

"If they are gone the really old residents will talk about "back when". The new ones will just have to fucking deal with it".

Or, in this case, not-fucking deal with it.