Sorry, no more gyms. Been converted to dorms to warehouse more inmates. If you were stuck in a 6×10 cell with five other people for 20 some hours a day for years on end, wouldn’t you want a TV? I’d hardly call it a luxury.

In some states private enterprises have contracts with the prison system. In Nevada for example they manufacture clear plastic products including those bags the TSA wants all of our liquids in these days.

Some inmates have earned enough to pay tuition and recieve college degrees; some in fact have earned enough to be required to pay income taxes on their earnings.
Unfortunately Nevada recently raised their minimum wage and those jobs will be moving to Mexico pretty soon.

Heaven forbid an inmate have any funds upon release.

Of course we all wonder why recidivism rates are so high.[/quote]

That is a major problem. Inmates can take “college level” courses, but they’re worth almost squat in the outside world and the money they earn over years of incarceration will be spent in a day on food.

Apart from that there’s the support problem upon release. If you’re getting out on parole, you have to have a place to go to. If you’re discharging, however, go where you want. Which is almost always a shelter or some such thing. No money, no roof over their heads and no income. Crime looks lucrative and life-sustaining.

Same problem at the DOC as the problem with the state prosecutors. None of it will be adressed byt the part timers in the legislature or Rell because the press is lazy and if it doesn’t make the press nothing gets done.

Five correctional officers sustained minor injuries, including slipping and falling to the ground, when trying to break up the altercations Saturday, officials said.

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19042034&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6

In some states private enterprises have contracts with the prison system. In Nevada for example they manufacture clear plastic products including those bags the TSA wants all of our liquids in these days.

Some inmates have earned enough to pay tuition and recieve college degrees; some in fact have earned enough to be required to pay income taxes on their earnings.
Unfortunately Nevada recently raised their minimum wage and those jobs will be moving to Mexico pretty soon.

Heaven forbid an inmate have any funds upon release.

Of course we all wonder why recidivism rates are so high.

The families they’ve left, in many cases destitute.

Our current system is little more than a warehousing program with a bent more towards revenge than rehab.
It’s both shortsighted, and a waste of our money.

What percentage of our inmate population is functionally illiterate upon incarceration, and what’s that percentage upon release?

Family members can put money in inmate accounts for purchase of tvs and snack foods.

But you will admit that things would be “easier” if overcrowding were not a problem. There certainly are scores of inmates that shouldn’t be in prison, at least not for the length that they are held.

I agree that DOC offers a variety of programs, but I have had several clients tell me that they just can’t get in. Another problem is that they finish all available programs within the first few years of incarceration and then have nothing to do. Also, not all programs and jobs are available at all facilities; so even if their level drops, they’d rather be at Osborn than Robinson or Brooklyn, because they’re earning money there.[/quote]

I absolutely agree that overcrowding reduces the chances that any particular individual can receive treatment, but this is not saying much since those chances were low to begin with – in view of the fact that we can only treat 5 to 10% of the population at any given time. But yes, overcrowding does make it worse.

There are 20 some facilities operated by DOC, and each is a fiefdom, with its own mission and philosophy. I work in a minimum security prison, we put 20 to 50 inmates back on the street in any given week. Our philosophy, and this is becoming a trend DOC-wide, is to provide treatment as close to release as we can. This works out better for DOC, and for the offender.

Earning money? $1 a day, give or take? It’ll be a long time before Johnny Inmate will be able to get that color TV. And most inmates have one. I’m not trash talking the idea of inmate jobs, keeping busy, earning a few $$$ for soups and crackers, but many if not most inmate have cash sent in by their people on the outside.

Not to change the direction of the thread, but what a racket! $300 for a 13″ TV that you or I could get at Sears for $90. And that is just an example. Don’t get me started! Who makes collect calls anymore? No one… except for inmates, and the rates are exorbitant. And who pays? The families. Enough. Rant off.[/quote]

Well, “earning money” gives them something to do. I’d rather have inmates gainfully employed in the facility than sitting around doing practically nothing. The rates could be better, though and it would provide them with some funds to buy essentials upon release. It’s not like we give out gate pay.

Yes, the prices are ridiculous and the collect call system is akin to highway robbery, but who’s going to complain?

But you will admit that things would be “easier” if overcrowding were not a problem. There certainly are scores of inmates that shouldn’t be in prison, at least not for the length that they are held.

I agree that DOC offers a variety of programs, but I have had several clients tell me that they just can’t get in. Another problem is that they finish all available programs within the first few years of incarceration and then have nothing to do. Also, not all programs and jobs are available at all facilities; so even if their level drops, they’d rather be at Osborn than Robinson or Brooklyn, because they’re earning money there.[/quote]

I absolutely agree that overcrowding reduces the chances that any particular individual can receive treatment, but this is not saying much since those chances were low to begin with – in view of the fact that we can only treat 5 to 10% of the population at any given time. But yes, overcrowding does make it worse.

There are 20 some facilities operated by DOC, and each is a fiefdom, with its own mission and philosophy. I work in a minimum security prison, we put 20 to 50 inmates back on the street in any given week. Our philosophy, and this is becoming a trend DOC-wide, is to provide treatment as close to release as we can. This works out better for DOC, and for the offender.

Earning money? $1 a day, give or take? It’ll be a long time before Johnny Inmate will be able to get that color TV. And most inmates have one. I’m not trash talking the idea of inmate jobs, keeping busy, earning a few $$$ for soups and crackers, but many if not most inmate have cash sent in by their people on the outside.

Not to change the direction of the thread, but what a racket! $300 for a 13″ TV that you or I could get at Sears for $90. And that is just an example. Don’t get me started! Who makes collect calls anymore? No one… except for inmates, and the rates are exorbitant. And who pays? The families. Enough. Rant off.

Well, the demand for meaningful treatment will never meet the need, and the available treatment will never meet the demand. That said, I can fairly say that meaningful treatment does occur – there are facilitated programs for anger management, domestic violence, substance abuse, even sexual deviance. As I say, the trouble is that the focus is absolutely not on treatment. ‘Safety and security’ trumps all. The prisons have to have the uniformed staff (ie, officers) it takes to manage the population, and it often seems that well, we do have a few bones left over we can spread out for treatment. And our state is really light years ahead of any others in terms of treatment delivered. In my department, we can treat about 60-65 inmates for substance abuse issues in a 3 month period, against a population of about 1100. 6%? for a population in which substance about issues put 85% behind bars? And that’s typical of the system. We are not going to catch up very fast.

But the Department of Correction in Connecticut is doing some cutting edge stuff, at least we assess (and recommend treatment to those that need it) 100% of our population. The assessments are not 100% accurate, but we’re only human. They are pretty good, though.[/quote]

But you will admit that things would be “easier” if overcrowding were not a problem. There certainly are scores of inmates that shouldn’t be in prison, at least not for the length that they are held.

I agree that DOC offers a variety of programs, but I have had several clients tell me that they just can’t get in. Another problem is that they finish all available programs within the first few years of incarceration and then have nothing to do. Also, not all programs and jobs are available at all facilities; so even if their level drops, they’d rather be at Osborn than Robinson or Brooklyn, because they’re earning money there.

Well, the demand for meaningful treatment will never meet the need, and the available treatment will never meet the demand. That said, I can fairly say that meaningful treatment does occur – there are facilitated programs for anger management, domestic violence, substance abuse, even sexual deviance. As I say, the trouble is that the focus is absolutely not on treatment. ‘Safety and security’ trumps all. The prisons have to have the uniformed staff (ie, officers) it takes to manage the population, and it often seems that well, we do have a few bones left over we can spread out for treatment. And our state is really light years ahead of any others in terms of treatment delivered. In my department, we can treat about 60-65 inmates for substance abuse issues in a 3 month period, against a population of about 1100. 6%? for a population in which substance about issues put 85% behind bars? And that’s typical of the system. We are not going to catch up very fast.

But the Department of Correction in Connecticut is doing some cutting edge stuff, at least we assess (and recommend treatment to those that need it) 100% of our population. The assessments are not 100% accurate, but we’re only human. They are pretty good, though.

I believe in rehabilitation. I work with dozens of offenders every year – if even 10% get the message, whatever that is, and never return – then that pays my salary several times over. The recidivism rate is high, but perhaps not as high as you may think. It’s about 50%, indicating that half of those we lock up get out and stay out. It’s that other 50% that are costing the big bucks.

And speaking of big buck, we don’t spend upwards of $40k per inmate to lock up inmates, as ACR says. It’s closer to $29.5k. Still, it’s not cheap, but it doesn’t help you make your point when your facts are not clear.

http://www.ct.gov/doc/cwp/view.asp?a=1492&q=265472 look at question #5.

I like Toucan’s quotes, but they don’t give me a feel about where Toucan stands on this issue. The only original thing (s)he said is about Maryland’s sentencing policy – about how much easier to understand than ours. Not if they were better, worse, about the same.

Personally, I see drugs and poverty as the main generating ingredients of crime in our state and our country. I’m not giving solutions, I don’t have any that are practical – either politically or fiscally. But if we legalized certain drugs and treated the way we now treat certain other recreational drugs (or drugs of abuse, take you pick as to the nomenclature) like tobacco and alcohol, we might cut down on the crime associated with their manufacture and distribution. Just for example of a non-practical solution. But build more prisons? We did that in the early 90s. Field of Dreams? You bet! Build ‘em, and they will fill. They did then, and they will again. Sentencing guidelines? Better to talk of the going rate (of time per crime), set at each court house. Abolishing Parole? 15 years ago, an offender could get out after serving just 10% of his time. That was abolished, now the best an offender can get is 50% off, but only for non-violent crimes (85% for violent crimes). We did this in the 90s (why do you think we built more prisons during that time?). Three strikes? Sounds good, doesn’t work in practice. Study the California system sometime to see how that worked (or didn’t) out.

So, the judiciary debates will be interesting. I’ll be listening, but I doubt I’ll be testifying. I’m just a small fish.[/quote]

Some very interesting comments there. I agree with a lot of it – there’s a vast disparity in sentencing between courts – and not just the “rural areas”. It’s the small courthouses as well: Manchester, Norwalk, Rockville. They’re brutal with defendants. Manchester gives longer sentences for one drug offense than Hartford does for 5 combined.

I am strongly opposed, however, to some form of sentencing guidelines. They take away any power the judge has to use his/her discretion and that can only be bad.

Again, on the other hand, I agree that rehabilitation absolutely works. Unfortunately, and you might attest to this, it is not a focus of the correctional system. Or perhaps due to the severe overcrowding, it cannot be. There are simply far too many people in jails for any of them to get any meaningful rehabilitation.

I use COLLECT in my job every day. The problem is that each state has its own automated law enforcement database system, and this is in addition to the Fed’s system. How can they all be collated, coordinated, and utilized efficiently? You are right, the state cannot do anything about it by itself. Presently, there are some 40 states that have agreed to work together, Connecticut being one of them. COLLECT is cumbersome, but will find the record, if there is one. What we need is new software, and that is being done. Too bad the last effort didn’t work out, it was low bid and the contractor wasn’t up to the job – no wonder it was low bid! so now it all has to be done again. I hope they get something fast and efficient.

justthefacts also works in criminal justice, and his/her post really highlights the dilemma of the Dept of Correction: We have to take who the courts send us, and make sense of what to do with them – just exacerbating the lack of consistency between the courts. The problem is systemic, not specific to Corrections. And the courts are merely following the rules laid down by the legislature. So the problem of crime is really addressed by all three branches of gov’t – they should be working together on it, rather than passing it around like a basketball, hoping someone will make a goal.

Blumenthal Sues Company For Defective Computerized Law Enforcement Database Vital To State Police

http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?Q=399502&A=2788

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/opinion/l20death.html