Alabama treats inmates like Victorian debtors at best, stray animals at worst

[Indy Texas]

Alabama's horrific criminal justice system is getting a lot of bad press lately. There was an article about the modern-day debt peonage that revenue-hungry small town courts have instated with the help of the for-profit prison industry. And now there's this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Woods developed an infection in his foot that Madison County's ruthlessly cost-cutting jail opted not to provide him with treatment for.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't an aberration; it's happened in Madison County before...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And in corrections facilities elsewhere in the state...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given evidence that states with larger black populations impose harsher sentences on criminals, irrespective of crime rates, is it any surprise that this is happening in Alabama and that the state's two candidates for governor - Robert Bentley and Parker Griffith - have said nothing about it?

It would be too generous to attribute this to budget cuts or administrative failure. Alabama's elected officials and bureaucrats willingly allow this to happen because of a visceral race hatred that pervades the state. It is part of the pathology that continues to afflict the Deep South and is dressed up in appeals to "tradition" or "law and order."

[GaussLaw]

This sounds like Angola before the prison reforms instituted by warden Burl Cain (though he's not perfect either). 

I agree that race plays a role, though at least in Louisiana, there are also a lot of white lifers doing hard time. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7Pk2hC3hoM

[MaxQue]

It's where the concept of personal responsabilities fails. If that happens, well, the county will pay the fees, no issue.

It's shouldn't be the county. In case of gross negligeance, it should be the police chief and the elected commissionner private money. That way, they will care about doing there properly, because, if they don't, they'll go bankrupt.

[pbrower2a]

Where people are deemed expendable -- expect the worst in the legal and penal system.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And people from the south claim to wonder why the south is ridiculed?

[memphis]

And people from the south claim to wonder why the south is ridiculed?

Meanwhile in California: http://www.californiaprisoncrisis.org/
The prison system is completely out of control everywhere in America. You're kidding yourself if you think it's only a regional issue.

[pbrower2a]

And people from the south claim to wonder why the south is ridiculed?

The South needs Carter-like pols who can convince blacks and poor whites to see each other as partners instead of adversaries. Carter may have been an awful President, but he was apparently a fine Governor.  Racist reactionaries have frequently offered "white privilege" as the local version of the "opiate of the masses" as a reward for refusing to show solidarity with poor blacks. 

[Grumpier Than Thou]

The American prison system practices amoralist treatment of inmates? No way.

[Cassius]

The American prison system practices amoralist treatment of inmates? No way.

Firstly, amoralist isn't a word, and secondly, even if it were it doesn't refer to what I think you are referring to. Secondly, who are you to judge what is immoral and what isn't. You are merely an individual and from what I can gather not exactly a hugely wealthy or powerful one either. I also recall that you are not religious, thus meaning that you have no Church, no God and no book to back up whatever definition of morality that you are peddling. You are also criticising the morality of the state, yet, again, you have no comparable source of weight to back up your claims to know what it is to be moral.

So, what would you do? The state has to signal its disapproval of the actions of criminals (in a way that is easy for everybody to understand), thus, naturally, prisons must be unpleasant places to be. Far from being a violation or dereliction of duty, these prisons are in fact performing to a tee the role that prisons should perform; that is, to be hard, nasty places of punishment and suffering for the inmates.

Although I wouldn't, myself, go in for withholding medical care from inmates, that is only because I am of the view that they should be farmed out to do hard labour for free, and, you know, crippled criminals aren't likely to perform such tasks particularly well. Nonetheless, I see nothing particularly immoral here, in fact, in my own flawed, worthless individual perspective, I see this treatment as being perfectly morally justifiable.

[DemPGH]

That New Yorker novella / article was quite disturbing, but I've heard about that kind of stuff - just never saw it like that. I've also heard a lot of negative things about welfare-to-work or whatever it is basically being indentured servitude in some of these states. Disgusting. 

[politicus]

The American prison system practices amoralist treatment of inmates? No way.

Firstly, amoralist isn't a word, and secondly, even if it were it doesn't refer to what I think you are referring to. Secondly, who are you to judge what is immoral and what isn't. You are merely an individual and from what I can gather not exactly a hugely wealthy or powerful one either. I also recall that you are not religious, thus meaning that you have no Church, no God and no book to back up whatever definition of morality that you are peddling. You are also criticising the morality of the state, yet, again, you have no comparable source of weight to back up your claims to know what it is to be moral.

So, what would you do? The state has to signal its disapproval of the actions of criminals (in a way that is easy for everybody to understand), thus, naturally, prisons must be unpleasant places to be. Far from being a violation or dereliction of duty, these prisons are in fact performing to a tee the role that prisons should perform; that is, to be hard, nasty places of punishment and suffering for the inmates.

Although I wouldn't, myself, go in for withholding medical care from inmates, that is only because I am of the view that they should be farmed out to do hard labour for free, and, you know, crippled criminals aren't likely to perform such tasks particularly well. Nonetheless, I see nothing particularly immoral here, in fact, in my own flawed, worthless individual perspective, I see this treatment as being perfectly morally justifiable.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Yeah, Politicus summed up my response. And amoralist is a word, just as amorally and amoralism are words.

[GaussLaw]

The American prison system practices amoralist treatment of inmates? No way.

Firstly, amoralist isn't a word, and secondly, even if it were it doesn't refer to what I think you are referring to. Secondly, who are you to judge what is immoral and what isn't. You are merely an individual and from what I can gather not exactly a hugely wealthy or powerful one either. I also recall that you are not religious, thus meaning that you have no Church, no God and no book to back up whatever definition of morality that you are peddling. You are also criticising the morality of the state, yet, again, you have no comparable source of weight to back up your claims to know what it is to be moral.

So, what would you do? The state has to signal its disapproval of the actions of criminals (in a way that is easy for everybody to understand), thus, naturally, prisons must be unpleasant places to be. Far from being a violation or dereliction of duty, these prisons are in fact performing to a tee the role that prisons should perform; that is, to be hard, nasty places of punishment and suffering for the inmates.

Although I wouldn't, myself, go in for withholding medical care from inmates, that is only because I am of the view that they should be farmed out to do hard labour for free, and, you know, crippled criminals aren't likely to perform such tasks particularly well. Nonetheless, I see nothing particularly immoral here, in fact, in my own flawed, worthless individual perspective, I see this treatment as being perfectly morally justifiable.

I certainly don't think prisons should be nice places, but yuck.  Just yuck. 

Prisoners are still humans and citizens too.  While they aren't meant to be pleasant, that doesn't mean that they don't have some tangible value other than for hard labor.  Surely there's a middle ground here.

[Frodo]

The American prison system practices amoralist treatment of inmates? No way.

So, what would you do? The state has to signal its disapproval of the actions of criminals (in a way that is easy for everybody to understand), thus, naturally, prisons must be unpleasant places to be. Far from being a violation or dereliction of duty, these prisons are in fact performing to a tee the role that prisons should perform; that is, to be hard, nasty places of punishment and suffering for the inmates.

Not all inmates are alike.  Not all of them are there for the most heinous offenses that you're probably envisioning (rape, murder, child molestation, etc.).   For the purpose of this conversation this is assuming, of course, that everyone who is in prison is there because they deserve to be there -and that law enforcement caught the right man in every one of those cases.  Prisons should be places of punishment for those inmates who are truly forsaken, certainly, but for those inmates who can be redeemed, rehabilitation as well.  

So is this really the right way to go about it?  Especially considering that many prisoners are there for nothing more serious than drug offenses?  

[Cassius]

Damn, I have been well and truly got with 'amoralist', my apologies.

Anyway...

The American prison system practices amoralist treatment of inmates? No way.

Firstly, amoralist isn't a word, and secondly, even if it were it doesn't refer to what I think you are referring to. Secondly, who are you to judge what is immoral and what isn't. You are merely an individual and from what I can gather not exactly a hugely wealthy or powerful one either. I also recall that you are not religious, thus meaning that you have no Church, no God and no book to back up whatever definition of morality that you are peddling. You are also criticising the morality of the state, yet, again, you have no comparable source of weight to back up your claims to know what it is to be moral.

So, what would you do? The state has to signal its disapproval of the actions of criminals (in a way that is easy for everybody to understand), thus, naturally, prisons must be unpleasant places to be. Far from being a violation or dereliction of duty, these prisons are in fact performing to a tee the role that prisons should perform; that is, to be hard, nasty places of punishment and suffering for the inmates.

Although I wouldn't, myself, go in for withholding medical care from inmates, that is only because I am of the view that they should be farmed out to do hard labour for free, and, you know, crippled criminals aren't likely to perform such tasks particularly well. Nonetheless, I see nothing particularly immoral here, in fact, in my own flawed, worthless individual perspective, I see this treatment as being perfectly morally justifiable.

I too am neither rich nor powerful, and thus don't believe that my viewpoints are morally superior. I believe them to be the right way of doing things, but I couldn't tell you whether or not I was 'moral' in what I do or not. My own view of morality can best be summed up like so; ordinary humans cannot divine morality by themselves, thus it must be handed down to them, whether by the Church, the state or by those in high places. In my personal opinion I am neither 'moral' or 'immoral', I have moments where I am one, the other, or even both. To be honest, I believe that my account with God is in the red, but what can I do to put it in the black, for I am merely an ordinary and powerless person. Neither I, nor R2D2 have any competency when it comes to judging moral matters, at least not of our own accord, because both of us are in the end ordinary.

As for prisons, well, I stand by my comments. Sometimes people must be compelled to do things, one of those things is to obey the law. If they do not comply then they should be punished, harshly, for not doing so, in order to deter others from doing the same (and thus challenging the power of the state). The more brutal the punishment, the more fear it will generate, and the more likely to swing into line the rest of the population will be. I suppose you think this is too harsh, and that criminals deserve to be rehabilitated; I say, only the criminal themselves and God can truly rehabilitate a criminal, the state's competency is to punish, not to rehabilitate. Regarding forced labour, that has been a practice for millennia, and seems a perfectly sensible thing, fulfilling two roles; punishing the criminal and providing free labour to those in society who need free labour.

The American prison system practices amoralist treatment of inmates? No way.

So, what would you do? The state has to signal its disapproval of the actions of criminals (in a way that is easy for everybody to understand), thus, naturally, prisons must be unpleasant places to be. Far from being a violation or dereliction of duty, these prisons are in fact performing to a tee the role that prisons should perform; that is, to be hard, nasty places of punishment and suffering for the inmates.

Not all inmates are alike.  Not all of them are there for the most heinous offenses that you're probably envisioning (rape, murder, child molestation, etc.).   For the purpose of this conversation this is assuming, of course, that everyone who is in prison is there because they deserve to be there -and that law enforcement caught the right man in every one of those cases.  Prisons should be places of punishment for those inmates who are truly forsaken, certainly, but for those inmates who can be redeemed, rehabilitation as well. 

So is this really the right way to go about it?  Especially considering that many prisoners are there for nothing more serious than drug offenses?   

The thing to do here is to decriminalise certain crimes. In the mean time...

[Flake]

This is sickening.. What kind of monsters do things like that?

The American prison system practices amoralist treatment of inmates? No way.

Firstly, amoralist isn't a word, and secondly, even if it were it doesn't refer to what I think you are referring to. Secondly, who are you to judge what is immoral and what isn't. You are merely an individual and from what I can gather not exactly a hugely wealthy or powerful one either. I also recall that you are not religious, thus meaning that you have no Church, no God and no book to back up whatever definition of morality that you are peddling. You are also criticising the morality of the state, yet, again, you have no comparable source of weight to back up your claims to know what it is to be moral.

So, what would you do? The state has to signal its disapproval of the actions of criminals (in a way that is easy for everybody to understand), thus, naturally, prisons must be unpleasant places to be. Far from being a violation or dereliction of duty, these prisons are in fact performing to a tee the role that prisons should perform; that is, to be hard, nasty places of punishment and suffering for the inmates.

Although I wouldn't, myself, go in for withholding medical care from inmates, that is only because I am of the view that they should be farmed out to do hard labour for free, and, you know, crippled criminals aren't likely to perform such tasks particularly well. Nonetheless, I see nothing particularly immoral here, in fact, in my own flawed, worthless individual perspective, I see this treatment as being perfectly morally justifiable.

What the hell is wrong with you?

[Chance92]

This is sickening.. What kind of monsters do things like that?

The American prison system practices amoralist treatment of inmates? No way.

Firstly, amoralist isn't a word, and secondly, even if it were it doesn't refer to what I think you are referring to. Secondly, who are you to judge what is immoral and what isn't. You are merely an individual and from what I can gather not exactly a hugely wealthy or powerful one either. I also recall that you are not religious, thus meaning that you have no Church, no God and no book to back up whatever definition of morality that you are peddling. You are also criticising the morality of the state, yet, again, you have no comparable source of weight to back up your claims to know what it is to be moral.

So, what would you do? The state has to signal its disapproval of the actions of criminals (in a way that is easy for everybody to understand), thus, naturally, prisons must be unpleasant places to be. Far from being a violation or dereliction of duty, these prisons are in fact performing to a tee the role that prisons should perform; that is, to be hard, nasty places of punishment and suffering for the inmates.

Although I wouldn't, myself, go in for withholding medical care from inmates, that is only because I am of the view that they should be farmed out to do hard labour for free, and, you know, crippled criminals aren't likely to perform such tasks particularly well. Nonetheless, I see nothing particularly immoral here, in fact, in my own flawed, worthless individual perspective, I see this treatment as being perfectly morally justifiable.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Well I've gleaned that the man is basically a Nazi, so I'm going to guess "everything".

[IceSpear]

The American prison system practices amoralist treatment of inmates? No way.

Firstly, amoralist isn't a word, and secondly, even if it were it doesn't refer to what I think you are referring to. Secondly, who are you to judge what is immoral and what isn't. You are merely an individual and from what I can gather not exactly a hugely wealthy or powerful one either. I also recall that you are not religious, thus meaning that you have no Church, no God and no book to back up whatever definition of morality that you are peddling. You are also criticising the morality of the state, yet, again, you have no comparable source of weight to back up your claims to know what it is to be moral.

So, what would you do? The state has to signal its disapproval of the actions of criminals (in a way that is easy for everybody to understand), thus, naturally, prisons must be unpleasant places to be. Far from being a violation or dereliction of duty, these prisons are in fact performing to a tee the role that prisons should perform; that is, to be hard, nasty places of punishment and suffering for the inmates.

Although I wouldn't, myself, go in for withholding medical care from inmates, that is only because I am of the view that they should be farmed out to do hard labour for free, and, you know, crippled criminals aren't likely to perform such tasks particularly well. Nonetheless, I see nothing particularly immoral here, in fact, in my own flawed, worthless individual perspective, I see this treatment as being perfectly morally justifiable.

[Cassius]

This is sickening.. What kind of monsters do things like that?

The American prison system practices amoralist treatment of inmates? No way.

Firstly, amoralist isn't a word, and secondly, even if it were it doesn't refer to what I think you are referring to. Secondly, who are you to judge what is immoral and what isn't. You are merely an individual and from what I can gather not exactly a hugely wealthy or powerful one either. I also recall that you are not religious, thus meaning that you have no Church, no God and no book to back up whatever definition of morality that you are peddling. You are also criticising the morality of the state, yet, again, you have no comparable source of weight to back up your claims to know what it is to be moral.

So, what would you do? The state has to signal its disapproval of the actions of criminals (in a way that is easy for everybody to understand), thus, naturally, prisons must be unpleasant places to be. Far from being a violation or dereliction of duty, these prisons are in fact performing to a tee the role that prisons should perform; that is, to be hard, nasty places of punishment and suffering for the inmates.

Although I wouldn't, myself, go in for withholding medical care from inmates, that is only because I am of the view that they should be farmed out to do hard labour for free, and, you know, crippled criminals aren't likely to perform such tasks particularly well. Nonetheless, I see nothing particularly immoral here, in fact, in my own flawed, worthless individual perspective, I see this treatment as being perfectly morally justifiable.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Well I've gleaned that the man is basically a Nazi, so I'm going to guess "everything".

Before we go any further down this line of, um... attack, let me just put forward a couple of point. I am not anti-Semitic. I am not anti-Slavic. I do not believe that the British people need 'living space'. I'm not very keen on the idea of placing one semi-competent man at the pinnacle of a vast, complex state, with pretty much absolute power. I do not believe that the disabled should be killed. I'm not amenable to the idea that women are basically baby factories. I also do not believe that there is such thing as a 'master race'.

Now that's out of the way, please inform me as to why I'm 'basically a Nazi'. Or we could just forget the whole thing .

[Flake]

This is sickening.. What kind of monsters do things like that?

The American prison system practices amoralist treatment of inmates? No way.

Firstly, amoralist isn't a word, and secondly, even if it were it doesn't refer to what I think you are referring to. Secondly, who are you to judge what is immoral and what isn't. You are merely an individual and from what I can gather not exactly a hugely wealthy or powerful one either. I also recall that you are not religious, thus meaning that you have no Church, no God and no book to back up whatever definition of morality that you are peddling. You are also criticising the morality of the state, yet, again, you have no comparable source of weight to back up your claims to know what it is to be moral.

So, what would you do? The state has to signal its disapproval of the actions of criminals (in a way that is easy for everybody to understand), thus, naturally, prisons must be unpleasant places to be. Far from being a violation or dereliction of duty, these prisons are in fact performing to a tee the role that prisons should perform; that is, to be hard, nasty places of punishment and suffering for the inmates.

Although I wouldn't, myself, go in for withholding medical care from inmates, that is only because I am of the view that they should be farmed out to do hard labour for free, and, you know, crippled criminals aren't likely to perform such tasks particularly well. Nonetheless, I see nothing particularly immoral here, in fact, in my own flawed, worthless individual perspective, I see this treatment as being perfectly morally justifiable.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Well I've gleaned that the man is basically a Nazi, so I'm going to guess "everything".

Before we go any further down this line of, um... attack, let me just put forward a couple of point. I am not anti-Semitic. I am not anti-Slavic. I do not believe that the British people need 'living space'. I'm not very keen on the idea of placing one semi-competent man at the pinnacle of a vast, complex state, with pretty much absolute power. I do not believe that the disabled should be killed. I'm not amenable to the idea that women are basically baby factories. I also do not believe that there is such thing as a 'master race'.

Now that's out of the way, please inform me as to why I'm 'basically a Nazi'. Or we could just forget the whole thing .

You literally said that prisoners should be tortured.

I know you're a very religious person, I am as well, but that's one of the most unchristian things I've heard someone say.

[Lief 🗽]

Cassius's schtick is getting old. Best to ignore it guys.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Besides the "farming out" part, and the fairly condescending response to Carl (though I do agree with him in principle that claims about morality ought to met with a response with its own solid definition of where right and wrong derive from), I don’t see what was so controversial about Cassius’s post.

Prison should be about rehabilitation, but what is to be done with those who can’t be rehabilitated? Should they remain burdens of the state, wasting away? Why not put them, in some form, to work to compensate for their existence. Certainly a more humane form of dealing with middle tier criminals (IE, people who shouldn’t be put to death nor are capable of being rehabilitated) than just letting them rot. Work very well may be the last resort for rehabilitation efforts in a few cases.

[Indy Texas]

Besides the "farming out" part, and the fairly condescending response to Carl (though I do agree with him in principle that claims about morality ought to met with a response with its own solid definition of where right and wrong derive from), I don’t see what was so controversial about Cassius’s post.

Prison should be about rehabilitation, but what is to be done with those who can’t be rehabilitated? Should they remain burdens of the state, wasting away? Why not put them, in some form, to work to compensate for their existence. Certainly a more humane form of dealing with middle tier criminals (IE, people who shouldn’t be put to death nor are capable of being rehabilitated) than just letting them rot. Work very well may be the last resort for rehabilitation efforts in a few cases.

Sanchez, if you read the articles, you'd see we're not talking about maximum security prisons housing serial killers and repeat violent offenders. We're talking about a guy who stole a Star Wars DVD from Wal-Mart - how much money do we need to spend punishing someone for stealing a $10 DVD? We're talking about a woman who was incarcerated because she couldn't afford to pay the fines for a ticket for driving with no insurance (which she probably couldn't afford to buy either). She doesn't need to be "rehabilitated." There's nothing wrong with her apart from the fact that she's poor.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Besides the "farming out" part, and the fairly condescending response to Carl (though I do agree with him in principle that claims about morality ought to met with a response with its own solid definition of where right and wrong derive from), I don’t see what was so controversial about Cassius’s post.

Prison should be about rehabilitation, but what is to be done with those who can’t be rehabilitated? Should they remain burdens of the state, wasting away? Why not put them, in some form, to work to compensate for their existence. Certainly a more humane form of dealing with middle tier criminals (IE, people who shouldn’t be put to death nor are capable of being rehabilitated) than just letting them rot. Work very well may be the last resort for rehabilitation efforts in a few cases.

Sanchez, if you read the articles, you'd see we're not talking about maximum security prisons housing serial killers and repeat violent offenders. We're talking about a guy who stole a Star Wars DVD from Wal-Mart - how much money do we need to spend punishing someone for stealing a $10 DVD? We're talking about a woman who was incarcerated because she couldn't afford to pay the fines for a ticket for driving with no insurance (which she probably couldn't afford to buy either). She doesn't need to be "rehabilitated." There's nothing wrong with her apart from the fact that she's poor.

I didn't read the article, but I was making a general statement on the prison system in general more than in these individual incidents. Shoplifting and being late on a ticket don't warrant incarceration.

[pbrower2a]

The American prison system practices amoralist treatment of inmates? No way.

Firstly, amoralist isn't a word, and secondly, even if it were it doesn't refer to what I think you are referring to. Secondly, who are you to judge what is immoral and what isn't. You are merely an individual and from what I can gather not exactly a hugely wealthy or powerful one either. I also recall that you are not religious, thus meaning that you have no Church, no God and no book to back up whatever definition of morality that you are peddling. You are also criticising the morality of the state, yet, again, you have no comparable source of weight to back up your claims to know what it is to be moral.

So, what would you do? The state has to signal its disapproval of the actions of criminals (in a way that is easy for everybody to understand), thus, naturally, prisons must be unpleasant places to be. Far from being a violation or dereliction of duty, these prisons are in fact performing to a tee the role that prisons should perform; that is, to be hard, nasty places of punishment and suffering for the inmates.

Although I wouldn't, myself, go in for withholding medical care from inmates, that is only because I am of the view that they should be farmed out to do hard labour for free, and, you know, crippled criminals aren't likely to perform such tasks particularly well. Nonetheless, I see nothing particularly immoral here, in fact, in my own flawed, worthless individual perspective, I see this treatment as being perfectly morally justifiable.

I certainly don't think prisons should be nice places, but yuck.  Just yuck. 

Prisoners are still humans and citizens too.  While they aren't meant to be pleasant, that doesn't mean that they don't have some tangible value other than for hard labor.  Surely there's a middle ground here.

Prisons as tools of exploitative elites who get cheap labor to be treated badly cannot rehabilitate people. They can only break people or while make them more hostile to society in general. Inmates can only see the State as an agent of exploitation. Such is so whether in the post-Reconstruction South or Stalin's Soviet Union. It is intended to remain indefinitely.

So create a culture in which inmates learn to respect personal property and human rights by stripping them of their autonomy and then bringing them back.

The plantation model of politics and perhaps in turn economics is making a comeback in the South for now; if there is a Devil he must be proud of his vile handiwork as he was of the Gulag.