"I forgot I was incarcerated sometimes. The staff treated you like a human, not a number."
"I’d say it was a way more liberal place, with way less of the prison politics. At the camp, everyone wasn’t segregated by race, like it was in prison. And the power dynamics and the violence you see on the prison yard, the ‘survival of the fittest’ stuff — that was hardly there at all."
"There were enough of the tough guys there that I had thought the same politics would still hold true, but I learned that fewer total men, plus more freedom for those men, equals a safer place than an overcrowded yard."
"You’re still counting down the days until you go home; it’s not like you want to stay there. But fighting fires, man, that is so much safer than being in prison."
"I saw guys fall off cliffs and get pretty injured, chainsaw injuries, burns, heat stroke."
"It was so physically demanding — but I have to say, it was an honor, a privilege, and a gift to be doing it. Every day, we wanted to prove we were better than the professional firefighters who were there. And it made me understand how much good I could do and how proud of myself I could be at the end of the day, which never happened in prison."
Everyone should read this, I almost wish there was less of an emphasis on his time in prison and more on after getting out. It obvious that for the vast majority of people prison makes them worse people than when they went in and so hearing about the inside is very interesting (to find out why they are the way they are) but life after prison is the real hell for most. So much so they welcome getting locked up again.
We really need more funding going to re-entry programs [0] to help convicts get back on their feet after prison. It should definitely start while in prison (To the author's point on things like helping them write a business plan and the like) but finding housing/job/etc is extremely hard for ex-cons and made even harder when the world outside sometimes looks vastly different than when they went in and the deck is very much so stacked against them. Not only that but just like how a muscle you don't exercise will atrophy so will skills so many don't know how to act outside of prison. It's a sad state we are in, no doubt, but I do hope we can turn this ship around before it gets any worse and ruins even more lives.
[0] Full disclosure, I work for an EM and re-entry company and so I'm obviously bias but one of the reason I took this job is because I DO believe in it.
I live near San Quentin. I have talked to two guys who were let out after, I believe seven for one, and the other guy was in over a decade.
They told me how their release went. This was a few years ago, but I doubt things have change. They both told me they were given a little under $200.
One guy, slightly older, was just looking for a place to sleep. I think he ended up under a bridge. He didn't mention having and support(family, etc.).
The other guy went to a flea bag motel in San Rafael. They wanted $150/night. He crossed the bridge and went to Oakland to buy some dope to sell. He figured he could slowly get into a room by selling dope on the streets. When talking to him, I had no advice. I did call a shelter I knew of, and they said it was only for women.
I didn't know either well enough to take in, and my roommates wouldn't understand any senerio. My point is if I was in my thirties, like the guy who went back to dealing drugs; I thought, I just might have done the same thing.
The thought of sleeping under a bridge, and then getting harrrased by authorities for being homeless just seemed like being in prison.
Both guys didn't take parole, and finished their entire sentences. I'm not sure if I would opt for parole either.
I related to these guys on a lot of ways. I wondered what I would do after doing time. I am essentially a loner, and the few friends I had died. I'm not that old, but my best friends just happened to be 20 years older than me. I would have no one when getting out. No support. Just under $200. Depressing. We need to build more shelters.
If prisons were paid based on recidivism rates rather than "keeping a human alive for X years", I suspect we'd see more humanity in how we treat prisoners.
The main thing is work-release programs. Work-release is pretty effective, but due to funding issues only like 20% of inmates actually get it.
Your suggestion is really similar to "No Child Left Behind:" take a public service that is underperforming (most probably due to lack of funds) and cut its funding further if it doesn't improve. It's a very free-market idea that ignores that sometimes you have to pay more up front to get a desired result.
The recidivism metric should be used as part of private prison bid selection and for determining whether the senior mgmt of a prison (warden etc) should be let go. Prisons with a bad metric should get focused attention to correct the problems (i.e. actually more money spent on them through hit-team style visits/supervision). Prisons with a good metric should get bonuses and public recognition.
A key legacy of no child left behind is that reducing funding as metrics fall is a very bad idea.
The problems with prisons cross private and public prisons. Private ones are likely worse, but even public ones are not shining examples of how to treat other humans.
That's a valid point, comparing to no child left behind. I'm not sure how to solve that issue- but at the same time, we currently have a system that incentivizes causing recidivism rather than preventing it.
The only folks that want to discuss recidivism are folks who don't benefit from the prison system (i.e. prisoners and their advocates).
If prisons were publicly measured and criticized based on on recidivism then wardens, parole boards, state and federal elected officials, etc, would all be at risk of being held accountable for the poor performance of prisons.
The public at large have really been fooled by this persistent avoidance of measuring prison success. Even a modest 10% reduction of recidivism (from 70% to 63%) would mean 36,000 fewer crimes and victims of crimes (about 10,000 prisoners are released weekly according to the DOJ).
To me that's the shocking part... improving recidivism would actually _prevent_ crime and reduce the number of victims of crime. Beyond that, there's the financial savings from reduced police man hours, courts, lawyers, and of course the actual costs of housing inmates.
Canada has a recidivism rate of 35% men/20% women, Sweden's is about 40%, Norway's is an astonishing 20%. If these countries can manage it surely the US can too.
Seriously, there is no solution to the problem of humans abusing systems that is not GAI-complete. We can't design solutions that strong, but we ourselves are that strong. We have a pretty good solution available, that we don't use as often as we should: recognize and punish assholes (or, more formally, people who defect in coordination problems).
In the real work we have systems of checks and balances. Simply hire a team of compliance checkers. Those checkers are kept in line by their management. If management is not up to task it'll come out eventually in a fabulous scandal, but in the mean time it'd be better than nothing.
Compliance checking is a formal way of identifying and firing assholes. As for "checks and balances", yes, separating powers between several groups of people to enforce coordination between them is a good thing, but it also gets gamed at a meta-level, which again means you need to find and punish meta-level assholes.
GAI complete is a term used by people who don't actually work in AI and assume that their use of GAI is somehow equivalent to AGI, which is the term of art for Strong AI - codified with the AGI Journal and AGI conference.
As someone else said, use multiple KPIs that describe an ideal individual who is reformed.
Recidivism rate, average annual income over the next 10 years, health/estimated life-span of the reformed individual.
Will prisons try to find ways to cheat? That's fine, we'll just reserve the right to redefine the KPIs every year for all new prisoners.
But making such a change is difficult, because of "tough on crime" politicians who believe the only way to reduce crime is harsh justice- when in modern times that simply isn't true any more.
And one way to improve standardized test scores would be killing low-achieving students, but you don't see schools doing that despite the funding incentive.
Even ignoring the moral issue, after all most prison administrators are indeed human, there's just no way to game it without getting caught. You might take out a few, but that would barely impact recidivism rates at any prison. We're talking about thousands of prisoners here, and a recidivism rate that hovers around 75%. That'd be hundreds of deaths to meaningfully impact a prison's recidivism rate. I don't care how powerful you are, you aren't going to kill hundreds of people all linked by a very identifiable thread and get away with it.
> And one way to improve standardized test scores would be killing low-achieving students, but you don't see schools doing that despite the funding incentive.
They get the same effect, with less pushback, by just removing them from the student population (one effective way of doing that is having extensive enough school policies that its nearly certain that students will violate them, and selectively targeting the low performers for enforcement, ultimately either driving them out or building enough of a history of documented violations to justify expulsion.) And, since lots of the standards are based on performance relative to current grade, they also game the results by not promoting advanced students to grades appropriate to their skill level, so that they can continue to be above nominal grade level and be contributing results longer.
Note that in both cases, this at the expense of the serving educational needs of the students involved well.
I absolutely agree with the idea that prisons would do almost anything within their power to prevent recidivism if their funding was tied to it, but I just strongly disagree with the idea that they'd resort to murder.
Something far more likely, in my opinion, would be them bribing parole board members to prevent their inmates from being released early. Not on the street, not able to commit a crime.
> And one way to improve standardized test scores would be killing low-achieving students, but you don't see schools doing that despite the funding incentive.
No, but they may be doing something similar[1]:
Schools at times suspend, expel, "counsel out" or otherwise remove students
with low scores in order to boost school results and escape test-based
sanctions mandated by the federal government's "No Child Left Behind" law,
at great cost to the youth and ultimately society.
I don't know the veracity of the linked paper, but it's certainly plausible and I'm sure it has occurred somewhere. If you're under enormous pressure to raise test scores, and your district has a continuation school, then it seems like the lowest-scoring students could be shuffled off to that school and the average increased.
Not that I'm making a value judgement here. It's possible that doing this is actually the best course of action in many instances, but it's also possible the the transfer technique could be abused to the detriment of some students.
All in all, it's extremely hard to develop a metric that's resistant to gaming and manipulation.
EDIT: Here's another good link. More of a primary source[2]
Presumably it would be set up so that each prisoner they released they get a check each month that prisoner stays out of trouble. Not sure how killing the prisoner would help them.
Then count people who die following their sentences in the same way you count reoffenders. Problem solved. As it stands, I'd bet a big fraction of people dying within 5 years of getting out of jail are ODs, so setting up a metric that encourages prisons to work on drug issues is a good thing.
If you're worried about states executing people to keep them out of the numbers, count executions that way too.
Setting drivers MPG as a kpi - best way to do that is not go anywhere.
One of the tragedies of the 1980s was the corporate raider. The quickest way to look profitable is to slash costs. The raiders did this buy shutting down plants. Balance sheets looked good, stock price goes up, sell off the company shares, company dies because of no production.
Profit of a company is really a poor metric for society. If 100,000 workers manage to build products but the company only breaks even is that a successful business?
>This is the story of what I learned—about my fellow prisoners, the guards and administrators, and the system in which we operated. It is a cautionary tale of friendship and betrayal. It is a story of how politics prepared me—and didn’t—for prison, and how prison prepared me for life.
This kind of perspective reminds me of how frequently leaders in large organizations have so many layers of buffer between what line-level employees do and what they hear on a regular basis, that, in the long run, nobody wins.
What makes him think he's any better to deserve to be sentenced to the comfort of his own home than the thousand other felons he's housed with? Because he violated campaign laws and not drug laws? Or because he had money he shouldn't have to face actual prison time? Or that he had powerful friends advocating on his behalf?
Another upstanding citizen who doesn't care about an issue until it personally affects him. Where was his concern of the expiration date of frozen meet when he had the power to do something about it? Didn't care much about the animals in prison then.
> Another upstanding citizen who doesn't care about an issue until it personally affects him.
I think this is false. He authored and passed criminal statue reform legislation in the state senate. He also clearly cares about people outside his own community: For example, he was a active proponent of urban education, co-founding a group of charter schools, teaching ACT prep courses to disadvantaged students, and much more. See:
That's not really the main point of the article, and he doesn't dwell on it. I imagine anyone in such a situation would plead to have an easier sentence, right?
I agree with the first part of your comment. He seemed to agree with the "You don't belong here" comment, which I disagree with. Do the crime, do the time. "What a waste" was a bit more accurate -- a waste to have him in jail, and a waste to have so many people in jail overall.
That said, your 2nd point is incorrect. He specifically mentioned working to reform MO prison statutes -- albeit, without consulting corrections officers.
Perhaps, but the beginning of the article reeks of him thinking he's somehow "too good" for prison, and that his transgression was just a temporary moral weakness.
While I'm glad he's bringing attention to the tragedy that is America's incarceration debacle, it would be nice if it didn't have to take a rich white guy getting put in jail before people take note that there is maybe a better approach to dealing with crime.
He did. I read the book. One of his biggest legislative accomplishments before prison was reducing from felony to misdemenaor status cases where dads failed to pay child support (usually due to their not having work). Lots of guys were going to prison with felony records for the crime of being divorced and broke. Saving taxpayers money was a big part of the argument for getting this passed.
Our criminal justice system is barbaric and should be a huge national shame. Not only is it used to perpetrate injustice against the poor and the disempowered it twists society with the way it favors retribution and punishment over forgiveness, rehabilitation, and true justice. It's also substantially race segregated and a huge source of racially driven animosity in parts of the population (helping to foment racial divisions and foster the creation of racially aligned gangs). And all of that is aside from the corruption issue, which is also deeply corrosive to our culture, society, and government.
This read to me like Stockholm Syndrome more than anything. I've spent time in a similar environment, and there is a unique bond you form amongst the people around you. But I think the author takes it a little too far when he starts projecting his outside experience onto his fellow inmates, and all but bestowing them with the entrepreneurial instincts of Marc Andreessen.
Yes prison sucks, with prisoners becoming better prisoners. But there are a lot of genuinely bad people in prison that belong there, and not on the outside starting companies and exploring there entrepreneurial lust.
This is why it is the criminal justice system, not prisons, that is at crisis point. Instead of decarceration the author pleads, we need to focus attention on making sure that less people end up inside in the first place.
So these genuinely bad people, you feel the solution is to lock them up for life? Whats the threshold to indicate when they should no longer be allowed to participate in society?
A lot of "bad people" succeed in the outside in politics, banking, venture capital, and frankly every industry. A lot of "bad people" in prison could easily be leading much different lives if they were born into different circumstances. How do you expect these people to become productive members of society and transition from "bad people" to useful citizens if you deny them any help or any tools to do so? If your only choice for survival is to sell drugs, then you're probably going to sell drugs. If there are better options, most people will take them.
This is the exact dialogue we need. I was referring to a certain strata of the incarcerated such as serial rapists and repeat murderers. Thankfully, that's a very small portion of inmates - so I retract my comment on there being a lot of them.
Sure, the term "bad people" cannot be quantified and really comes down to outlook in life, but I truly believe these folks cannot be rehabilitated and do not belong in our society.
Members of the Roman Imperial Legion were known to engage in serial rapes and murders in the lands they occupied.
There is a calling for this type of skill set, and the exact role is that of a soldier. As there haven't been many wars in recent years, it's only logical that you'd find these types in prison.
Relevant to this discussion is Foucalt's concept of "disciplinary institution". [1]
Would hardly call what a professional soldier does the same as what a murderer, often a crime of passion, does. Same with rape. I do not need raping soldiers in any capacity.
This is incredibly offensive to professional members of the military. You are also completely wrong about the lack of war in recent years as it relates to incarceration.
This comment exemplifies what was being mentioned in the article. "Bad people" as a thought-terminating cliché - well obviously they're bad people, therefore we shouldn't care about the conditions inside.
That may not be what you meant to say, but that's the way your comment reads.
He does seem to think that America is worse off because we're containing these prisoners' "entrepreneurial spirit," which is something I'm pretty solidly convinced we could live without quite comfortably, actually.
tl;dr Prisons are designed like their goal is not reform but waste containment. Also, your sentence doesn't really end after your release due to housing/job restrictions, societal biases against ex-cons.
A pretty good read but nothing that hasn't been said before. Skip it if you've seen Orange is the New Black or Vice's "Fixing the System"
Why was he in such a prison? Other white collar offenders seem to end up in much nicer facilities. "Similar to a Holiday Inn" is how I've heard it described.
Prisons are a good idea, but they're done totally wrong. Allowing prisoners to interact with each other is a terrible idea.
Here's my idea for a prison: each cell is the size of a fairly spartan one-bedroom apartment. You go in at the start of your sentence, and you leave at the end. There's a window, maybe a sunlamp, hopefully a treadmill. Food is dropped through a hole in the wall.
I know what you're thinking: "But solitary confinement baaad!" But we do what we can to keep the prisoners' minds occupied. They'll have free access to educational books and videos, hopefully whole educational programs to let them learn marketable skills. We can let then video-chat with loved ones on the outside. Probably even give them video-chat access to a limited number of other prisoners as part of a "peer support" program, although that privilege would be monitored and revoked if anyone starts misusing it. I'm open to other ideas too.
A prison like this would be nice and cheap to run because it would require fewer guards. It would prevent people from coming out of prison with new criminal skills and contacts. And while it may be less pleasant for hardened criminals who like hanging out with their criminal buddies, it would certainly be more pleasant for first-time offenders who don't fit into key prison demographics like the senator or probably you or I. I'd pick the enriched solitary confinement over having to socialise with the general prison population any day, wouldn't you?
What.... this is so wrong, so disconnected, so cold.
You think you can take convicts, put them in a small box with nothing but "enriching material" and have a productive member of society pop out after a few years?
What about the exact opposite of what you proposed?
Not a chance. Human interaction is crucial to rehabilitation - what do you think the recidivism rates would be like for a person who hasn't had a real interaction with someone in months or years? The goal should be to make prison more like the world outside, not less. This sounds more inhumane than the existing model, and that's saying something.
There is human interaction. Via videophone. We isolate people from bad influences, though.
People say "omg mental illness" but this kind of thing has never even been tried in the Skype age.
The goal is to make it more like the outside world, in important ways. We take people who live among bad influences and instead of immersing them in a world of even worse influences we put them in an environment where they're surrounded by positive influences (without being allowed to forget that, yes, they're in prison.)
> Why do criminals need to be treated humanely though?
Because to treat a human being like they are not a human being makes you evil.
> Won't the deterrent effect of prison be reduced if we go too easy on them?
Data says: no. Beyond the simple deterrence of losing one's liberty (which is significant), the harshness of prison has no real deterrent effect -- but does serve to acclimate prisoners to violence, coercion, and anti-social behaviour. What prison does is rehabilitate, or fail to rehabilitate. That is the metric which matters.
Because the way you're recommending treating them means they come out with no job skills, atrophied social skills, and otherwise ill-adapted for society. Thus, they'll turn to the only tool they have, and they end up right back in. Your method is far from a deterrent, it'll just encourage recidivism and lead to ever more populated jails. Treating people humanely ends up being a lot cheaper in the long run.
And this sort of retributive thinking has nothing to do with "feelings of moral superiority"?
The only argument that makes sense is the one that gets the best results, and it turns out treating people like subhuman trash has rather negative results in the long run.
> Won't the deterrent effect of prison be reduced if we go too easy on them?
I don't think this is true. More precisely, it's obviously true that extremes can change how much of a deterrent effect there is, (e.g. if prison is a 5-star resort people might prefer to be inside than out), but your position is like trickle-down economics.
The Laffer curve certainly exists in the sense that governments collect less revenue from taxing either 0% or 100% than they do from some intermediate amount. But using this tautology to assert we should categorically lower taxes ignores the crucial question of where we are in that curve.
Importantly there seems to be a fairly inelastic response to changes in sentencing; drastic changes in sentencing seem not to generally change criminal behaviour (see a wealth of statistics on the death penalty, also the crime rate collapse since the 90's).
To decide whether we want to make prisons more or less humane we need to address the purpose of prisons.
If you think prisons are primarily for justice/punishment, I'd urge you to consider the numerous lapses of our legal system, the fact that ~95% of prosecutions end in plea bargains instead of trials, endemic prosecutorial overreach, and the severe shortage of adequate counsel/public defenders for the poor. Additionally, consider the "three felonies a day" complaint --- that laws are poorly and vaguely written, general to the point of absurdity, and opaque --- which means that you could
probably be convicted of something by a sufficiently zealous prosecutor.
If you think prisons are primarily about effecting good outcomes for the rest of society I'd argue that a system that focuses on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism will necessarily be more humane.
Finally, as others have said though it bears repeating, we (as society) should treat people humanely. Full Stop. Not because they are human, but because we are.
Because they're human? Because wrongful convictions happen? Also, the deterrent effect of prison is more dependent on certainty of punishment, rather than severity of punishment.[1]
> Also, the deterrent effect of prison is more dependent on certainty of punishment, rather than severity of punishment.
Good point. I suspect its even more based on the perceived marginal increase in likelihood of punishment if an act which is intended to be deterred is committed vs. if it is not. Certainty of punishment is one factor that weighs in that, but certainty of nonpunishment of the act is not committed is also a factor.
You got downvoted, but I think this is an interesting idea.
I don't think it is great to be applied as a default to everyone, but if I were forced to go to prison as the person I am today, I would opt for this in a heart beat over being exposed to the general prison population as the risks of that far outweigh spending lots of time alone reading/learning. I know I can do the latter--I don't know that I can do the former and come out unscathed. So for me it all comes down to risk.
Exactly. I spent 40 days in prison once, on a cell with 12 or 13 other dudes... I would gladly take the isolation. I would lose the dozen or so blunts I smoke with some of the cool dudes with whom I had common friends, but I would be first in line for that isolation and some books.
Thanks for bringing up another important point: today's prisons are rife with drugs. Won't be easy getting drugs in my prison, so everyone will come out clean.
You realize that constant isolation tends to lead to psychological disorders, right? I'm not sure if you meant your post in jest, but I thought I point that one problem out.
Regular solitary confinement is complete sensory deprivation. I'm talking about enriched solitary confinement with lots to keep the prisoner busy and occupied.
Um, no. As someone who's dealt with supposed enriched solitary confinement (self-imposed) it doesn't work out. You still get mentally disordered. It's just a fact of life that humans have to socialize to stay relatively sane.
Of course he was ("disordered", to use your phrasing), and of course we all are, to some greater or lesser extent. I spent a few months in self-imposed isolation in my adolescence, and yes, I was already fucked up going into it, but there's just no way of slicing it where those were anything other than the most self-destructive, dysfunctional, long-term-devastating months of my life. Fortunately I had people in my life who cared about me and pulled me out of it - far too late to prevent my social development from being permanently castrated, but I've always been stubborn, at least I'm able, a decade later, to be a more-or-less functional adult in my day-to-day life.
Subjecting other people to this goes so far past "cruel and unusual" that idonteven - what the hell - you yourself have got to be pretty much entirely forfeit to think this would somehow be a positive experience for a human being. Jesus. fucking. christ.
And yeah, for the record,, that comment would be highly offensive, if the ability to feel offence and outrage weren't one of the casualties a mere 12 weeks of what you're advocating as a rehabilitation mechanism. The mind boggles.
No offence, but do you even have scientific evidence that there can be a form of semi-permanent to permanent isolation which is psychologically healthy for any human beings? Even ascetic monks have to interact from time to time before they crack. Humans didn't evolve for isolation.
> I'd pick the enriched solitary confinement over having to socialise with the general prison population any day, wouldn't you?
Do have experience with either? I believe the "enriched" solitary confinement you're proposing would be more maddening than you think. I agree that the US has a problem with criminals creating new networks inside of prisons, but stripping away all real interaction is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Functioning members of society need to know how to interact with each other. If you believe that prisons should rehabilitate, you should agree that they need to encourage safe, respectful, and real interaction with strangers.
I vote if he commits any crime, he be sent to solitary confinement till he's on the edge of insanity.
Solitary confinement is one of the most terrible things that can be done to a human being, and is very comparable to being 'sucked' by Dementors (from Harry Potter. The creatures that suck your soul away and leave and soulless zombie, that while not dead, is not entirely alive).
At which point they'll be disabled and not be capable of making it outside of an institutional environment. As such, they will be costing society much more money for a much, much longer time. What you're talking about is torture, ripping someone's mind apart for your sick, demented sense of justice.
> Monitoring video-chat would require more guards, not fewer.
>Delivering food to each cell would take more staff, not fewer.
I looked up "guard to inmate ratio" and apparently about 1:5 is standard. So that's what we're trying to beat.
Delivering food to each cell takes very little manpower. You'd only need to drop food once a day -- a hot dinner, plus some cold food for breakfast and lunch. (See? We're already teaching our prisoners important life skills, like thinking ahead -- don't eat all that food immediately or you'll be hungry at lunchtime tomorrow! They'll learn that one in a few days.) One guy could easily serve hundreds of cells, over a period of a couple of hours. (Think about flight attendants... heck, think about mailmen.)
As for monitoring video chat, that would take some manpower, but you wouldn't need to monitor every chat all the time, you'd just pop in every now and then to make sure people weren't forming the wrong kinds of relationships.
> Are you proposing "enhanced solitary" for all inmates, or just the ex-senators?
All inmates. There's probably some for whom it would be less pleasant -- e.g. the gang leaders who currently enjoy high status among their fellow prisoners. It would be a lot more pleasant for those who don't come from traditional prison demographics. That's fine, we're trying to make prison equally pleasant/unpleasant for everybody.
It sounds like you've put just as much thought into prisons as the people who've come up with our current prisons, and come up with a solution that is probably just as awful.
> I'd pick the enriched solitary confinement over having to socialise with the general prison population any day, wouldn't you?
I bet you wouldn't after a few months.
I also bet you wouldn't be well suited to getting out afterwards either. Prison should be about rehabilitation, and what your proposing is to isolate someone from society completely.
>what your proposing is to isolate someone from society completely //
I think his motivation is right, to isolate inmates from the rarefied society that forms in prisons and instead to provide contact only to beneficial interactions and through useful means.
What people probably need to enable their rehabilitation is to be relatively confined but not allowed to mix with other prisoners, instead getting human interaction - if they behave well - with non-criminals who can be emotional supportive, provide aspirations, provide companionship that does not involve drug seeking or sexual power plays, etc..
I've been thinking a lot of "how would it work if it was an Artificial Intelligence".
I don't think any kind of AI would learn to live in society by being all alone, and i have a hard time understanding how any natural intelligence would work differently.
Not to get too tangential, but there was something called the Auburn System[1] which, well, seemed pretty effective from what I've understood. Both in the sense that it was so undesirable to be there, and also that obtaining a working skill would increase a person's utility on the outside. Not that some of the methods used aren't essentially torture, but the silence factor has me very intrigued.
Part of me is pretty interested in this subject and a little familiar because a former associate of mine wrote an incredible - if not authoritative - thesis on the prisons in the Antebellum south before the Civil War. I learned a lot about the subject by proxy, and it's quite apparent to me modern society has pretty much ignored any and all lessons that could be relevant from that part of history.
I understand the sentiment but humans crave and need social interaction. They go crazy without it. If anything, the status quo in jails today only prove that point; among all these hardened criminals, the most feared punishment is to be locked in a room by themselves. It makes sense that you're trying to give them something with which to engage themselves, but it's not an adequate replacement.
Prison is difficult because it's hard to find a one-size-fits-all solution. There are some people who are only held back because they don't have access to information, but there are also people who would destroy a computer or book if you let them use it.
It seems like the root of the problem is that prison supervisors may not have the flexibility or the interest in really picking out the prisoners that are unworkable and those that just need some tutoring, and that once a prisoner is released, it's difficult to get make money legally. There is no one dedicated to their success on the inside or outside. This is probably because most people don't want to work with prisoners and the BOP is not willing to make up that reluctance with the cash necessary to get good people in the door.
Shrug. I'd take that option, too. Solitary confinement as practiced is not just solitude but a near-total absence of stimulation. Put a computer in my private prison cell and that's practically my life as it is anyway. But you have to understand that to most criminals, the general population is their peer group--perfectly enjoyable people to be around. They're effectively locked up with their friends.
I think your idea is only acceptable as an alternative to existing solitary confinement practices, for prisoners who cannot interact with anyone in person without violence.
I do agree that prisoners need more contact with people other than other prisoners and guards, but the way to do that is to make a prison closer to a last-resort punishment and to give those that are subjected to it zero-cost phone calls, video chat, therapy, etc.
That sounds plausible, but I think there would /at least/ have to be some changes.
For example, some amount of checking on seems important for medical safety. Perhaps not much, but some.
The things I've heard about solitary seem to suggest that part of it is, as you suggest, lack of anything to do, and maybe that is most of it? I'm not sure. Would having information to study be enough to not alienate them from other people? I'm not sure it would be. How much human interaction is necessary?
Would providing a source of news be expensive, and would it cause any problems? Would it help anything?
So, I can see some advantages of your proposal, but I'm not sure whether it would be sufficiently safe . (Whether is is sufficiently unlikely to cause significant harm)
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/08/19/prisoners-who-...
"I forgot I was incarcerated sometimes. The staff treated you like a human, not a number."
"I’d say it was a way more liberal place, with way less of the prison politics. At the camp, everyone wasn’t segregated by race, like it was in prison. And the power dynamics and the violence you see on the prison yard, the ‘survival of the fittest’ stuff — that was hardly there at all."
"There were enough of the tough guys there that I had thought the same politics would still hold true, but I learned that fewer total men, plus more freedom for those men, equals a safer place than an overcrowded yard."
"You’re still counting down the days until you go home; it’s not like you want to stay there. But fighting fires, man, that is so much safer than being in prison."
"I saw guys fall off cliffs and get pretty injured, chainsaw injuries, burns, heat stroke."
"It was so physically demanding — but I have to say, it was an honor, a privilege, and a gift to be doing it. Every day, we wanted to prove we were better than the professional firefighters who were there. And it made me understand how much good I could do and how proud of myself I could be at the end of the day, which never happened in prison."