Would You Let This Happen?

[ashfire]

A news item from a county in Georgia will use prisoners that have sentences for drugs or theft to fill in as a crew in the county fire stations. A least two prisoners will be assigned to a station without a guard but monitored while on duty with electronic devices.
The county said this is a money saving idea because they can not hire and train the needed personnel.
Some areas of the country have combination systems of career and volunteer personnel to save money.
One idea was used by a city back in World War 2 which used city workers from other agencies to be trained as fill in firefighetrs and lasted up today.

[Xeno]

Well I think it would depend on a number of variables such as: how severe was their crime, how long have they been in jail/prison, is there a plan in place to get these prisoners trained for this job so that once they are released they will have a decent job, are they just being viewed as expendable life that can burn in a fire if a mistake is made because they're a prisoner?

The answers to questions like those would make me decide if I would support a program like this or not. Either way, the people being used should be shown to have progressed to be beyond what put them into prison in the first place. People do change, just because someone has been to prison doesn't make them a degenerate for life like some people seem to believe (and I'm not trying to imply the OP believes this).

[Atria35]

^ What Xeno said. All of it.

[seaglass27]

If everyone looked at issues the way Xeno does the media wouldn't get away with half the fear-mongering.

[ClosetOtaku]

I hired an ex-con once. It almost cost me my job and career.

I was in charge of a hospital clinical laboratory on a military base (which shall remain nameless for privacy purposes). We ran a blood collection operation and blood bank for the hospital. We needed a lab assistant to help with the administrative and technical portions of donor blood processing.

We received an application to review, and I noticed that this person had a record for larceny. Still, he'd done his time, completed his probation, and I was young and idealistic. Give the guy another chance, right?

Well, one of the things you have in a Blood Bank is a deferred donors list. These donors are prohibited from giving blood because of various reasons. As part of his job, our new employee had access to this list. Many of the donors on our list were HIV positive. One particular donor also happened to be a friend of the ex-con I hired. In short order, our new employee (he'd only been on board about two months) had told everyone who knew this person about their condition. Some friend. This despite having been trained on privacy policies (this was in the days before HIPAA).

Anyways, this HIV-positive person certainly could have sued the hospital for this violation. For whatever reasons, they did not. Needless to say, I fired the person on the spot, but not before being seriously threatened by the hospital administration for my own 'failing'. What was I thinking, hiring an ex-convict to work in a hospital setting?

Well, I can't think of many positions nowadays that don't involve some sort of trust. Among those would be, of course, things like working in a fire station. (I also have worked as an EMT alongside firefighters, and know that going into people's homes and having access to their personal information is part of the job.)

I've never knowingly hired an ex-con since then, and would likely never do so again. Based on this incident, and other experiences, I believe the average ex-con is less "I made a mistake" and more "this is a repeated pattern that I just happened to get caught at". But unless I knew about their background extensively, I'd look at the 'convictions' box, see the check mark, and move on to the next candidate.

And so I'm not too down on the people who won't hire ex-cons for anything more than picking up trash on the side of the road. I wouldn't actively oppose this program, but I would be interested in hearing the voices of those who do not want it, and would be reluctant to dismiss their objections.

[Xeno]

Perhaps I'm young and idealistic myself, but what did the guys larceny conviction have to do with his inability to keep his mouth shut about confidential patient information? Anyone, ex-con or not, could have made that mistake.

I certainly know where you're coming from, as I work for the local PD as a dispatcher and if I was doing hiring for my own personal business I would certainly think twice before hiring an ex-con, but again that doesn't mean that they are all bad people. Some of them do change. One of the problems with the current system, in my opinion, is people get dumped out of jail/prison without any kind of reintegration system and they just fall back into what they did before they went into prison in the first place.

[DaughterOfZion]

Though by being unable to get a job that pays enough to work on, you almost guarantee they will turn back to their life of crime, assuming it was profitable enough.

[ClosetOtaku]

Perhaps I'm young and idealistic myself, but what did the guys larceny conviction have to do with his inability to keep his mouth shut about confidential patient information? Anyone, ex-con or not, could have made that mistake.

The funny thing is, though, after many years of managing people in the medical field, I've never witnessed another such egregious violation of personal privacy. Perhaps I was sparing on the details -- the way in which this was done was very methodical, hurtful and deliberate, certainly no 'mistake', more intentionally designed to denigrate, humiliate, and ostracize the individual involved -- and I've come to associate that degree of aggressive evil with ex-prisoners. (That, the manslaughter (read murder) of a family member by an ex-con, and a couple of less violent events involving former prisoners pretty much have made up my mind on the topic, but the incident I cited in the lab was due to my own poor decision, no one else's.) Call me disillusioned or disappointed in the response of this guy to his re-integration into society (at whatever point), but "a dog returns to its vomit" seemed to be in play here.

I certainly know where you're coming from, as I work for the local PD as a dispatcher and if I was doing hiring for my own personal business I would certainly think twice before hiring an ex-con, but again that doesn't mean that they are all bad people. Some of them do change. One of the problems with the current system, in my opinion, is people get dumped out of jail/prison without any kind of reintegration system and they just fall back into what they did before they went into prison in the first place.

They are certainly not all bad people, and if I knew more about their background, perhaps I would feel differently. But we are also talking about a widely applied program in Georgia, which will no doubt be administered by a bureaucracy that will not spend adequate time assessing the standing of every individual. Given that approach, I'd be very wary.

And I guess I'll never understand the re-integration argument. Either they aren't bad (in a civil society sense), or they are. If they aren't bad, why do they 'fall back' into doing things that are seriously injurious to other people? (Not talking about the addicts or mentally ill here, I'm talking about the people who are in full control of their senses and choose to return to illegal activity.) There are plenty of people who are disadvantaged and lack jobs who have never committed a felony -- how would the lack of a job or opportunity explain the falling back of an ex-convict?

[Cognitive Gear]

Anecdotal evidences and pillars of faith aside, I would like to bring some stats to the table.

The United States (where most of us live) has a recidivism rate (rate of prisoners that return to prison within 2 years of release) of ~60%*.

Norway, where the maximum sentence for any crime is 21 years (even for murder), and whose prisons are notoriously nice, has a rate of only 20%*.

Obviously, this doesn't tell the whole story, but it should definitely give us good reason to think about the way we treat our prisoners here, and about the potential power of rehabilitation programs.



*These statistics are spread across many journalistic sources, such that providing one specific source is unnecessary. You can feel free to google it.

[mechana2015]

I seem to recall that they use prison crews to fight forest fires out here in Claifornia, but I could be wrong or out of date on that. It's not the same obviously, but just thought I'd add in a bit of a note that there are places that do something similar.

[Atria35]

^@ ClosetOtaku- I can see where you're coming from, but honestly? I know one or two people who would behave like that if they were given that job. They aren't criminals, they don't do anything illegal... they're just nasty, bigoted people. If it put their job at risk, then they'd make sure to do it in an underhanded way, or only privately, but they would shame the person.

[ClosetOtaku]

The United States (where most of us live) has a recidivism rate (rate of prisoners that return to prison within 2 years of release) of ~60%.

Norway, where the maximum sentence for any crime is 21 years (even for murder), and whose prisons are notoriously nice, has a rate of only 20%.

Obviously, this doesn't tell the whole story, but it should definitely give us good reason to think about the way we treat our prisoners here, and about the potential power of rehabilitation programs.

I don't dispute the significant variance between these numbers, but I'm less inclined to attribute it to the efficacy of rehabilitation programs. I think there is a significant cultural component at work in Norway that we lack here in the States. It's the same reason I feel perfectly safe walking the streets of Seoul or Tokyo at night, but would not be caught out late evenings in DC or Philadelphia, for example.

I'm certain there are examples of effective programs that can be found throughout the U.S. that help reduce recidivism. Does that argue against the "once a criminal, always a criminal" position? Of course.

But the real litmus test is: would you knowingly hire an ex-con to babysit your kids (assuming you had alternatives available)? manage your business accounts? handle your vital personal information? If you can't say 'yes' to all of these questions and more, I sincerely doubt you've abandoned the same values that those who oppose hiring ex-cons hold, statistics be damned. Yet faceless paper-pushers, who themselves will likely have minimal exposure to any threat (real or imagined) seem to have no problem implementing these programs, and that bothers me.

[ClosetOtaku]

^@ ClosetOtaku- I can see where you're coming from, but honestly? I know one or two people who would behave like that if they were given that job. They aren't criminals, they don't do anything illegal... they're just nasty, bigoted people. If it put their job at risk, then they'd make sure to do it in an underhanded way, or only privately, but they would shame the person.

Well, actually, today under HIPAA it would be illegal to disclose the information, so they would be criminals if they did, but your point is well-taken.

And maybe my reaction is hyperbolic: I deliberately allowed this person on staff, and was repaid by almost losing my job, so naturally I'm going to paint with a broader brush. Subsequent encounters with ex-convicts have done nothing to make me believe that the "reformed ex-convict" is likely, or even possible (I believe it is possible, but my sample space doesn't confirm it). I may just be choosing my data sets with extreme prejudice.

But -- and this is my point -- my perspective is from my experience, not moral philosophy or theories on human behavior. I'd love to hear people relate first-hand experiences as to how somebody they knew had been a convict, changed their life, and did great things (or just lived a respectable life) that they have first-hand knowledge of. With the large number of people exiting prisons over the years, narratives should abound. I don't have any, or know of any. (Most of the acquaintances I've had who have gone to prison for whatever reasons are still there.) Does anyone reading this have such stories?

[Cognitive Gear]

Well, actually, today under HIPAA it would be illegal to disclose the information, so they would be criminals if they did, but your point is well-taken.

And maybe my reaction is hyperbolic: I deliberately allowed this person on staff, and was repaid by almost losing my job, so naturally I'm going to paint with a broader brush. Subsequent encounters with ex-convicts have done nothing to make me believe that the "reformed ex-convict" is likely, or even possible (I believe it is possible, but my sample space doesn't confirm it). I may just be choosing my data sets with extreme prejudice.

But -- and this is my point -- my perspective is from my experience, not moral philosophy or theories on human behavior. I'd love to hear people relate first-hand experiences as to how somebody they knew had been a convict, changed their life, and did great things (or just lived a respectable life) that they have first-hand knowledge of. With the large number of people exiting prisons over the years, narratives should abound. I don't have any, or know of any. (Most of the acquaintances I've had who have gone to prison for whatever reasons are still there.) Does anyone reading this have such stories?

This is important to remember. You are choosing your data sets with prejudice. Which is a perfectly normal thing that people do. Unfortunately, it's generally a bad way to set broad policies.

In this particular case, there are a couple of reasons that rehabilitated ex-con stories will be in short supply. There are few people on CAA in a position to hire, and ex-cons, generally speaking, are understandably reluctant to let others know that they spent time in prison. As such, unless you are in a position to know, you may never find out that your accountant friend or construction co-worker is a successfully rehabilitated convict.

As for examples, I think that we would do well to remember that the founder of our religion (Paul) was a murderer.

As for personal examples, I can't count the number of drug addicts/sellers whom gave testimonies at my private Christian school who were doing quite well for themselves. I don't know how they are doing now, but they certainly spent time in prison, and were doing fine back then. There are also more than a few that attend my current church.

But the real litmus test is: would you knowingly hire an ex-con to babysit your kids (assuming you had alternatives available)? manage your business accounts? handle your vital personal information? If you can't say 'yes' to all of these questions and more, I sincerely doubt you've abandoned the same values that those who oppose hiring ex-cons hold, statistics be damned. Yet faceless paper-pushers, who themselves will likely have minimal exposure to any threat (real or imagined) seem to have no problem implementing these programs, and that bothers me.

As long as I can subject them to the same standards that I would apply to hiring someone for those positions otherwise: yes. I say that because of the specificity of these three positions: they all deal with things that are personally important to me, and as such I wouldn't hire someone that I didn't already know and trust from before my hiring process began. (either from direct contact or from "friend of a friend" resources.)

That said, I get what you are saying. I wouldn't hire a former child molester to watch my kids. I don't think that discounts the importance of rehabilitation programs, or the theological call I believe Christians have to love even the lowest of the low of society. In the case of the child molester, I'd file it under "not bringing a brother into temptation".

As for the rest of this particular post, I would say that you are correct, there are other forces at play in Norway's crime rate. I think that that reasons get into politics, so I will refrain from talking about them, since we are already riding a very fine line in having this conversation on CAA.

[Nate]

I honestly don't know how to solve problems like this. On one hand, it's great to say that prisons should be largely rehabilitative, and I sorta agree with that. The problem comes in when some people get upset that prisoners are living well on the taxpayers' dime, and what incentive is there to avoid prison if they're just going to treat you nicely? On top of that, some people are either unwilling or unable to be rehabilitated, and it's a wasted effort.

On the other hand, if prison is nothing but punishment and harshness, that doesn't help the problem either, because then a person has to become a criminal to survive in an environment, and once he gets out, he may be bitter, or it may just be that being tough to survive is all he knows due to prison, and he's likely to go back. And since there's no rehabilitation, they're more likely to commit crimes again (as CO mentioned).

It seems like the best thing to do is a mixture of the two but I don't know how that could realistically be pulled off, and even considering that, it wouldn't solve the greater problem of "What do these people do when they get out of prison?" The "joke" answer is of course "They shouldn't have gone there in the first place!" which admittedly is true enough, but doesn't solve the problem. Plus it fails to take into account people falsely accused of a crime.

I dunno. I don't know what can be done. :\ I don't even know IF anything can be done.

[ashfire]

I have known of the use of prisoners for use in forest fires but they have guards assigned to the crews to keep them under watch.
Prisoners have been used for road repair and road cleaning crews.
I remember some years ago where a prison allow their prisoners to ride on ambulance calls outside the prison in a area where services were lacking.
I have read where prisoners work on the prison fire dept in the prison.
A news story a while back told of a prison fire dept crew saved a fisherman who fell in the water near a prison.
The thing is a county government looking to save money.
It may work in some areas of the country.
I know where I live the public would objected and the fire service and the firefighters union would fight the idea tooth and nail against it.

[Sheenar]

I live near a prison town. They use trustees (inmates with a lengthy record of good behavior and who are in prison for non-violent offenses) to pick up trash on the side of the road, work on buildings, clean buildings, work with the TDCJ horse program, ride horses/go hide on a ranch to help train tracking dogs and many other things. It's just part of life in a prison town --the inmates that are trustees are supervised by officers either on horseback or on foot/in vehicles.

Sure, they *could* try to do something, but it's really in their favor not to. Many have worked hard for years to have the good record they do to get into their position and some are close to finishing their sentences. Doing something at this point would be really stupid on their part.

As for hiring ex-cons, I am friends with a couple of ex-felons and can vouch for the possibility of complete transformation/rehabilitation. One should use caution and common sense in hiring practices, of course, but if a person has shown that they are in therapy/classes/rehab and are making progress, they should be given a chance (under supervision) to prove that they have really changed --one they have a good record of good work and behavior, one should have more of an idea if they have really changed for the long-term or if they are going back to where they were.

[ShiroiHikari]

I think that putting prisoners to work rather than just letting them sit around and rot is a good idea, but I think it would be difficult to actually execute such a plan. I think that if we're going to have prisoners working on the outside, the non-violent and/or first-time offenders should be the first choices.

I'm also in favor of rehabilitation, but once again, it's something that is easier said than done. Some people are willing and able to change and some aren't and change is not something you can force.

[Nate]

if a person has shown that they are in therapy/classes/rehab and are making progress, they should be given a chance (under supervision) to prove that they have really changed --one they have a good record of good work and behavior, one should have more of an idea if they have really changed for the long-term or if they are going back to where they were.

The problem with that is prisoners who game the system and pretend as if they're reforming so they can get out earlier or be put in a position where they're less supervised and have a better chance of escape.

[bkilbour]

Doesn't this take jobs away from those who want to be professional firefighters? I know the city wants to savem money, but it feels like they're taking chances from the innocent to give them to the guilty - and that just feels wrong.

[Dante]

Frankly, I think using prisoners to do work to save the region money is unethical. They're still human beings and to force them to do this or that labor is the equivalent of slavery (either reduce sentence lengths or collect more taxes to support it). Even if they're not considered to be everyone's favorite people, they're still people and someone's loved one. If you're going to use prisoners, you need to pay them a fair wage, you need to give them a reason to want to work.

I'm tired of the world demonizing prisoners, as though piling on stigma and punishments will somehow give them motivation to change. If the psychological barriers to change are perceived as too difficult to overcome, humans tend to simply cope with their new social status over trying to change to one that is perceived as greater I imagine. Of course, maybe that's just me.

[DaughterOfZion]

Here's an a news story on this: http://www.truth-out.org/georgia-considers-replacing-firefighters-free-prison-laborers/1318532127 a couple of the main things:

The inmates would not be paid for their work, but upon release they would be eligible to work as firefighters five years after their conviction dates instead of the normal 10.

The Camden program would put two inmates in each of three existing firehouses, and they would respond to all emergencies – including residential – alongside traditional firefighters.

[Nate]

If the psychological barriers to change are perceived as too difficult to overcome, humans tend to simply cope with their new social status over trying to change to one that is perceived as greater I imagine.

No, I think you're right, but the problem is greater than that. As ClosetOtaku said earlier, he would not hire an ex-con. Now I'm not going to say he's right or wrong for that, and he gave very good reason. But the problem is, his point of view is the dominant one. "I'm not going to hire someone who was in prison."

And so you have someone come out of prison, who maybe made a dumb mistake when they were younger, or changed in prison and became a better person. They get out, they try to find a job...and what happens? "I'm not going to hire you, you were in prison."

What is this person going to do? They can't get a job, and they need money for a place to live, food to eat, clothes to wear...and so what's an easy solution? Crime. Burglarize people's houses. Steal their money, their clothes, their stuff. If you get caught, hey, prison gives you free food, free clothes, a roof over your head. I may not be pleasant, and you may have to fight for your life, but at least you have a chance, instead of living in a cardboard box under a bridge, searching for scraps.

And that's a major problem. So long as most businesses are unwilling to hire people who have been jailed, the problem is going to persist and it will only result in more crime as people will turn to breaking the law to make a living. And what can you do about that? Burglary or larceny isn't worth the death penalty, so you can't just execute them. And giving people a life sentence for burglary seems pretty unjust too. And at the same time, you will have people complain "I don't want my taxes to go to supporting this guy for his entire life!" So you can't kill them, can't keep them locked up, but they can't get work. What is the solution?

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Anecdotal evidences and pillars of faith aside, I would like to bring some stats to the table.

The United States (where most of us live) has a recidivism rate (rate of prisoners that return to prison within 2 years of release) of ~60%*.

Norway, where the maximum sentence for any crime is 21 years (even for murder), and whose prisons are notoriously nice, has a rate of only 20%*.

Obviously, this doesn't tell the whole story, but it should definitely give us good reason to think about the way we treat our prisoners here, and about the potential power of rehabilitation programs.



*These statistics are spread across many journalistic sources, such that providing one specific source is unnecessary. You can feel free to google it.

I doubt that recidivism rates have much to do with the way prisoners are treated, but rather the reasons why they may commit acts of crime in the first place. Socioeconomic stuffs, etc.

But as you said, I don't have the total statistics so I'm not sure what % of inmates were in for what reasons and stuff.

[ShiroiHikari]

And at the same time, you will have people complain "I don't want my taxes to go to supporting this guy for his entire life!"

Never mind the fact that a lot of the people who complain about taxes don't even have to pay taxes.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Never mind the fact that a lot of the people who complain about taxes don't even have to pay taxes.

Zing! It all goes back to The Man anyway. =p

[Dante]

Zing! It all goes back to The Man anyway. =p

How sexist, why doesn't any of it ever go to The Woman?

[Jingo Jaden]

Anecdotal evidences and pillars of faith aside, I would like to bring some stats to the table.

The United States (where most of us live) has a recidivism rate (rate of prisoners that return to prison within 2 years of release) of ~60%*.

Norway, where the maximum sentence for any crime is 21 years (even for murder), and whose prisons are notoriously nice, has a rate of only 20%*.

Obviously, this doesn't tell the whole story, but it should definitely give us good reason to think about the way we treat our prisoners here, and about the potential power of rehabilitation programs.

*These statistics are spread across many journalistic sources, such that providing one specific source is unnecessary. You can feel free to google it.

Please, do not praise the Norwegian prison system. It got enough problems as it is. Glaring among them is the first mentioned. They are too nice. You got a lot of immigrants from Poland and the baltic nations who commit high risk crimes, knowing if they get caught, they get relatively good service and full dental, and if not, they earn some extra cash. Rehabilitation among these circumstances is extremely low, as it is a win win situation for them regardless. Brevik, a notorious mass murderer who killed primarily youth has been given access to videogames and shows. Provided they are not violent. Which I frankly find childish and backwards as an attitude for officials. With an estimated 100 million kroner for legal fees, whereas the victims of his carnage will at max get 3,5 million each.

Secondly, a lot of indirect elements are ignored when looking at these two stats. Firstly, the poverty rates have a direct link according to just about every stat. Norway, who are close to Saudi Arabia as far as oil money is concerned have a pretty sizable portion of their state treasury spending. This is effectively what made Norway so filthy rich, unlike Sweden which has a much more thriving industry. Crimes among Norwegians themselves is relatively low, and usually not related to survival-based crimes such as basic theft. The assimilation issues however has created a divide where it is more severe among certain immigrant groups. This, however, is much more severe in the US. Where it composes of an entire third of the federal prison and probably much higher along local county prisons near the Mexican border. The culture of poverty itself also expands to cities such as Chicago and Baltimore, where the job market is failing and crime seems favorable for many individuals. Where economic incentives for work is low, crime is likely to rise and probably even bind itself to a culture of crime, which will absorb many individuals.

Long story short, while both have problems. The US does not have the oil fields proportional compared with nations *Combined with it's much higher oil consumption costing money', to what made Norway so laughably rich. There is also cultural/poverty related aspects which probably extends far beyond the prisons themselves that affect the crime rates to a far greater degree. It's not as much which prison system is more effective, it's a lot more about how much wealth is there in said region, how much corruption is in said region and how well all the various groups of people get together.

That being said, as far as the program is concerned. I am 50/50. On one hand, the best rehabilitation most criminals can get is probably being put into a working environment with a guaranteed job at the end of it. On the other hand, if the state has failed so much it can't pay for it's basic services then a much greater problem is right around the corner.

[Cognitive Gear]

Please, do not praise the Norwegian prison system. It got enough problems as it is. Glaring among them is the first mentioned. They are too nice. You got a lot of immigrants from Poland and the baltic nations who commit high risk crimes, knowing if they get caught, they get relatively good service and full dental, and if not, they earn some extra cash. Rehabilitation among these circumstances is extremely low, as it is a win win situation for them regardless. Brevik, a notorious mass murderer who killed primarily youth has been given access to videogames and shows. Provided they are not violent. Which I frankly find childish and backwards as an attitude for officials. With an estimated 100 million kroner for legal fees, whereas the victims of his carnage will at max get 3,5 million each.

Secondly, a lot of indirect elements are ignored when looking at these two stats. Firstly, the poverty rates have a direct link according to just about every stat. Norway, who are close to Saudi Arabia as far as oil money is concerned have a pretty sizable portion of their state treasury spending. This is effectively what made Norway so filthy rich, unlike Sweden which has a much more thriving industry. Crimes among Norwegians themselves is relatively low, and usually not related to survival-based crimes such as basic theft. The assimilation issues however has created a divide where it is more severe among certain immigrant groups. This, however, is much more severe in the US. Where it composes of an entire third of the federal prison and probably much higher along local county prisons near the Mexican border. The culture of poverty itself also expands to cities such as Chicago and Baltimore, where the job market is failing and crime seems favorable for many individuals. Where economic incentives for work is low, crime is likely to rise and probably even bind itself to a culture of crime, which will absorb many individuals.

Long story short, while both have problems. The US does not have the oil fields proportional compared with nations *Combined with it's much higher oil consumption costing money', to what made Norway so laughably rich. There is also cultural/poverty related aspects which probably extends far beyond the prisons themselves that affect the crime rates to a far greater degree. It's not as much which prison system is more effective, it's a lot more about how much wealth is there in said region, how much corruption is in said region and how well all the various groups of people get together.

That being said, as far as the program is concerned. I am 50/50. On one hand, the best rehabilitation most criminals can get is probably being put into a working environment with a guaranteed job at the end of it. On the other hand, if the state has failed so much it can't pay for it's basic services then a much greater problem is right around the corner.

Like I said, there are a number of factors that go into that stat, but I didn't want to bring them up as I didn't want to open the door to further political discussion. Most of the studies I have seen have shown a direct correlation between a decrease in poverty and a decrease in crime, and they ways to do that are heatedly debated, mostly falling into politics.

I wanted to bring up those stats due to how dramatic the difference is. At the time, there was a question as to why reintegration is even an option, and the stats that Norway provides are a great example of just how effective it can be, given the right circumstances.

Norway's system may not be perfect, but it's clear that they must be closer than the US currently is.

[Sheenar]

In many cases, giving prisoners the chance to work outside the prison is a welcome thing for the inmates and not akin to slavery --life inside of a prison is very boring. Very. Lots of sitting on your bunk or in your cell. Working outside and getting to do something with your hands is a welcome thing (and the inmates chosen to be trustees are usually ones whose sentences are almost over). I think the trustees get paid for their work --at least the ones in the horse program do --they can buy things at the commissary or other things.

I agree that there is a huge problem with former inmates finding work after release. Many do wind up returning to crime just to survive/have housing and food. There are programs in place to help, but they are far from being highly effective.