Josh and Anna 55: Settling in at Seagoville

[Coconut Flan]

Continued from here:

 

[Jackie3]

Quote

However, a sizeable portion of our population continues to be non-violent drug offenders.

From what I can tell, it's less than half.  A sizeable minority, you might say.

I suppose Josh is considered a non-violent offender. He's hardly an angel.

So people who watch children being tortured have to pay 30 cents for email? Why is that sad?

 

 

[ContrastingButtons]

Great thread title.  May Josh be there many, many, many years… and counting.

[Freejin]

It seems it would take a certain type of mental fortitude to keep from being clinically depressed in prison. What do we think Josh will be like, mindset-wise. 

[noseybutt]

1 hour ago, Freejin said:

It seems it would take a certain type of mental fortitude to keep from being clinically depressed in prison. What do we think Josh will be like, mindset-wise. 

Low-level depression is very common among the incarcerated.

That said, I suspect he might adjust average or better.  Reasons being:

-Work and care-giving are not his jam 

-He has low standards for food quality, exercise, entertainment, and friendship

-He will be surrounded by like-minded individuals WRT to sexual preferences and loving Jesus--no need to live a double life

In a sense, he has been institutionalized his whole life in that he was been expected to follow rules and more rules and (shut up) yet more rules. All the while never being truly financially independent.
 

[Antimony]

14 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

From what I can tell, it's less than half.  A sizeable minority, you might say.

I suppose Josh is considered a non-violent offender. He's hardly an angel.

So people who watch children being tortured have to pay 30 cents for email? Why is that sad?

God smite me for answering this because it doesn't matter at this point but perhaps, consider, not that I think it's particularly sad, but instead that I'm asking the question, "Who does this serve?" and "What does this mean about their motivations?" because it does beg the question. 

Who gets the money from 30 cent emails? Private investors and private profiteers.
What does this mean for their motivations? They're likely to want more people in jail, for longer. They may lobby for this. They may lobby for this as sneakily as possible. They may do it boldly. It really depends. They may attempt to convince jails to do more to limit the ability of inmates to us USPS. I did note that the price to send an email is comparable to a letter, but the USPS doesn't have a profit interest in keeping people in prison. (Also, they have a very different labor load.)
Does the email system being paid benefit the inmates? No.
Does the email system being paid benefit inmates families? No. It is an additional costly burden for people who are, in theory, not being punished. Family members pay to send emails too. The price gouging is cutting both ways. 
Does the email system being paid benefit victims? No. See "money goes to the pockets of private companies." It's not as if that 30 cents drops into the pocket of community therapy coffers each time somebody sends any email. If it did, this would be a different story. And maybe it should! Maybe that would be a system worth having, or at least worth discussing. 
Does the email system benefit the public? I would say no, as in, any reasonably competent public department could create this service, which is relatively unsophisticated, and likely cheaper (because they're not looking to make a profit). I mean, it's a freakin' keyword search security system. It doesn't look for ciphers or anything. It couldn't even look for an acrostic message the way a human could. It might even miss a "key security" word if you misspell it badly enough. 

So, who is this for? It doesn't advance any of the goals even the most pro-prison folks here have, as far as I can tell. It has no benefit to rehabilitation. Why would it be worth defending? 

It's one thing if a private company has a vested interest, in say, people drinking coffee. Okay. We can run an advertisement about coffee, maybe we lobby for some import tax changes. If a private company has a vested interest in...keeping as many people in prison as possible...for as long as possible....well. Well. Then it's worth taking a real critical eye to. 

[Zebedee]

@Antimony I  was given an essay to proofread today by a friend for his 17 tear old son, in India. It's to prove English competency, as he is applying to Uni in the UK, on the topic of "Do prisons work?". I was happy to read it - he concludes they don't, and I was quite impressed with his references. I may have just passed on some little things about conditions in US prisons already. Since he was also making a point about loss of outside family/friend relationships and recidivism, I think I'll have to also pass on the costs of sending an email being 2.5 hrs work. 

I really cannot believe that anyone tries to justify US prison conditions. They are barbaric, a failure, and not fit for purpose. Reddit is doing my head in with the number of people gloating about what is in store for Josh. I get it, we all hate him, but frankly, I cannot take any pleasure in the suffering of people like him, or worse. There is a large middle ground between letting the likes of Josh, Ted Bundy and Ghislaine Maxwell roam free, and actually torturing people, and it really makes me worry about the psyches of lots of people.

 

[Howl]

The important thing in my mind is that many inmates like Josh will return to "civilian" life and again become our fellow citizens.  One hopes that every effort has been made to make them decent human beings who can reintegrate in some way; becoming a productive citizen may not be in the cards, but at least not continue to harm the innocent. 

There will be recidivism because some people are hopeless -- two damaged to be helped.  But for others? 

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

2 hours ago, Zebedee said:

I really cannot believe that anyone tries to justify US prison conditions. They are barbaric, a failure, and not fit for purpose. Reddit is doing my head in with the number of people gloating about what is in store for Josh. I get it, we all hate him, but frankly, I cannot take any pleasure in the suffering of people like him, or worse.

 

While I don't disagree about many US prisons, Josh is in a minimum security Federal prison, and it doesn't get much better than that for inmates. He's not likely to be bothered much by the non-child abusers in the prison, although I'm sure he'll endure some verbal shit. He won't be locked in a cell and aside from whatever limited job he's assigned, his days will be his own. Yes, he'll suffer from the loss of freedom and no doubt the boredom, but as others have pointed out, he's well used to draconian rules and shitty food. But the people predicting a life of horrors have no idea what they are talking about. 

[feministxtian]

49 minutes ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

While I don't disagree about many US prisons, Josh is in a minimum security Federal prison, and it doesn't get much better than that for inmates. He's not likely to be bothered much by the non-child abusers in the prison, although I'm sure he'll endure some verbal shit. He won't be locked in a cell and aside from whatever limited job he's assigned, his days will be his own. Yes, he'll suffer from the loss of freedom and no doubt the boredom, but as others have pointed out, he's well used to draconian rules and shitty food. But the people predicting a life of horrors have no idea what they are talking about. 

If that place is anything like where my daughter was, Alderson, it's sort of, kind of summer camp. Count twice a day and everything is shut down after light's out, but there's no real regimented shit. Jobs are assigned, but there's time for exercising, chilling out, hanging out, and generally just summer camp. I don't think there was razor wire on the fence. The gate was nothing more than a swing arm and lines painted on the driveway. 

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

7 minutes ago, feministxtian said:

If that place is anything like where my daughter was, Alderson, it's sort of, kind of summer camp. Count twice a day and everything is shut down after light's out, but there's no real regimented shit. Jobs are assigned, but there's time for exercising, chilling out, hanging out, and generally just summer camp. I don't think there was razor wire on the fence. The gate was nothing more than a swing arm and lines painted on the driveway. 

Alderson is a camp, so it's probably even looser, but violent prisoners are kept out of minimum.  Along with the pedophiles, he'll be around white collar criminals, non-violent drug criminals, and possibly people with nearly completed sentences. All people who don't want to end up in medium security facilities or with longer sentences. 

[noseybutt]

I think some functions of government should never be privatized.

Like the police force. If someone is working as an agent of the state including power and responsibility for use of force, they should be hired for and paid by and be responsible to the state.

I feel the same way about prisons. It's the state that incarcerates, and it's the state that should retain full responsibility for the prisoners.

I deeply disagree with making profits off of prisoners in any way, shape or form. That's just motive for the state (and private companies) to keep people incarcerated. It's not hard to draw a historical line between the modern for-profit prisons and the plantations. 

 

[Expectopatronus]

4 hours ago, Howl said:

The important thing in my mind is that many inmates like Josh will return to "civilian" life and again become our fellow citizens.  One hopes that every effort has been made to make them decent human beings who can reintegrate in some way; becoming a productive citizen may not be in the cards, but at least not continue to harm the innocent. 

There will be recidivism because some people are hopeless -- two damaged to be helped.  But for others? 

I agree that reintegration needs to be foremost in people's minds. If we treat inmates terribly, they will come out angrier and worse off than they were when they went in. From what I have read, research does not support long sentences either. With education, job skill training, psychoeducation, therapy, if warranted medication, and hopefully building relationships, I think most people can become productive citizens. If Josh receives educational upgrades, training to hold a job for non-family members, psycho-education to understand his sexual attraction and why acting on urges towards children is wrong, trauma therapy to heal from his childhood, empathy building and forms relationships with other men who will keep him accountable, he probably could become a contributing member of society. Would I ever trust him to babysit? Not a chance but could he work as a car mechanic, night cleaner for offices, tech support (remotely)? Probably.

That said, there are those (a minority) who probably cannot be rehabilitated. Serial killers who cannot be treated with meds for example but this is a tiny portion of the population.  

[GuineaPigCourtship]

@Antimony I have really appreciated your thoughtful replies throughout the last few threads.  Even if you're arguing with a brick wall, it has been enlightening.

[Jackie3]

 

11 hours ago, Antimony said:

Does the email system being paid benefit the inmates? No.

It's OK with me if it doesn't benefit the inmates. 

There are 3 reasons for prison: rehab, punishment and deterrent. Prisons may fail at rehab, but Josh is certainly being punished and definitely is acting as a deterrent.

We have no way of knowing  what it costs a private company to run an email system for a prison. We don't know if the inmates cost cover those expenses.  If it turns out the system is corrupt, then fix that! Or don't. But keep those criminals away from children. 

Inmates families experience hardship in many ways. Who caused that hardship?--the inmates themselves. They're the reason daddy isn't home for Christmas. They're the reason Mommy has to spend 42 cents every week on emails (although I believe Corrlinks is free to families). Inmates will be the first to blame the prison system, but that just puts the focus on the wrong thing. Rehabilitation won't occur until they take responsbility.

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Jackie3

[EmCatlyn]

It will be interesting to see how Anna settles into the life of a prisoners wife.  Whether or not she moves to Texas (and I can’t guess which it will be), the rhythm of how they related when he could talk to her several times a day while in prison is going to change.

I could see her staying at the Duggar compound and just traveling to visit Josh once every couple of weeks.  If it is not possible to see him more than twice a month, why move?  On the other hand, this is Anna.  She may want to be close enough to gaze adoringly at the walls of his prison.

If she actually believes that the appeal may work, however, she may feel that she may as well keep to the present living arrangements, not uproot the kids or go through the hassle of moving because Josh may be coming back soon.

Whatever she does, I hope she will think of her kids first.

 

[Sops2]

I think I spotted 2 Ms at Fairpark Baptists kids summer activity week- "the Mighty God". It takes place every year and some Ms were there last year too.

So they definitely were  staying with David and Priscilla this week. Claire Spivey/ Duggar was in the background of one of the photos as a helper.

On Sunday, David Waller mentioned visitors to the church service.- Jed and Katey. Perhaps they brought the Ms to Fort Worth

Edited June 29, 2022 by Sops2

[Howl]

7 hours ago, Expectopatronus said:

From what I have read, research does not support long sentences either. With education, job skill training, psychoeducation, therapy, if warranted medication, and hopefully building relationships

This just triggered a memory that may be somewhat relevant to this discussion. Many years ago I read an interesting  book by a mega wealthy guy, Jack Dreyfus, who was promoting the use of the anticonvulsant  medication Dilantin (phenytoin) as a way to help violently aggressive prisoners.   

I googled and yes, there have been subsequent studies that showed its efficacy and the New York Times did a long article about Dreyfus and his crusade in 2000:  Shangri-La In a Bottle?; A Wall Street Lion's Campaign to Promote A 'Miracle Drug'   

pubmed:  The effects of phenytoin on impulsive and premeditated aggression: a controlled study

I don't know if Dilantin is still used as much.  According to the NYT article, even in 2000 there were drugs that were more effective at controlling aggressive behavior and aggressive mania. 

[Cam]

 

 

I could definitely see crime escalating if there was no threat of prison. Cars would be stolen, banks would be robbed, houses broken into at a far higher rate because the fear of getting thrown into prison would not be there. What would stop a Brinks truck heist?  Sure, some people would never commit crimes. But even those who don’t agree with it on principle could be driven to do it. If someone’s wife was raped, or child was murdered, or parents’ had their life savings stolen  or their loved one’s house was burnt to the ground in a case of arson, or was the victim of a doctor or nurse with a God complex who intentionally administered drugs that killed some of their patients etc., what would prevent a person from exacting revenge for those crimes? We see and hear often how family members of victims of brutal crimes have to do everything in their power to not take the life of the perpetrator. What stops them? One thing is the laws of the land. Placing trust, whether warranted or not, in the judicial system that the offender will be proven guilty and do hard time. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Cam

[samurai_sarah]

16 minutes ago, Cam said:

 

 

I could definitely see crime escalating if there was no threat of prison. Cars would be stolen, banks would be robbed, houses broken into at a far higher rate because the fear of getting thrown into prison would not be there. What would stop a Brinks truck heist?  Sure, some people would never commit crimes. But even those who don’t agree with it on principle could be driven to do it. If someone’s wife was raped, or child was murdered, or parents’ had their life savings stolen  or their loved one’s house was burnt to the ground in a case of arson, or was the victim of a doctor or nurse with a God complex who intentionally administered drugs that killed some of their patients etc., what would prevent a person from exacting revenge for those crimes? We see and hear often how family members of victims of brutal crimes have to do everything in their power to not take the life of the perpetrator. What stops them? One thing is the laws of the land. Placing trust, whether warranted or not, in the judicial system that the offender will be proven guilty and do hard time. 

Having a conscience?

[Coconut Flan]

2 hours ago, Howl said:

This just triggered a memory that may be somewhat relevant to this discussion. Many years ago I read an interesting  book by a mega wealthy guy, Jack Dreyfus, who was promoting the use of the anticonvulsant  medication Dilantin (phenytoin) as a way to help violently aggressive prisoners.   

I googled and yes, there have been subsequent studies that showed its efficacy and the New York Times did a long article about Dreyfus and his crusade in 2000:  Shangri-La In a Bottle?; A Wall Street Lion's Campaign to Promote A 'Miracle Drug'   

pubmed:  The effects of phenytoin on impulsive and premeditated aggression: a controlled study

I don't know if Dilantin is still used as much.  According to the NYT article, even in 2000 there were drugs that were more effective at controlling aggressive behavior and aggressive mania. 

That's fascinating to me for a personal reason.  I've spoken elsewhere about my mother having Alzheimers with psychosis and she became extremely agitated and aggressive culminating in a really bad incident early last month.  When the usual medications didn't fully control it and the tranquilizers sedated her so much she fell twice in three hours, they asked to try Depakote (a different anti-seizure drug) sprinkles at breakfast.  It was a night and day shift.  She hasn't had a violent or aggressive outburst since and she's quit saying everyone is going to hell even.  

I wonder how that works, but I wish more doctors had known about that with mom.  

[Antimony]

2 hours ago, Cam said:

 

 

I could definitely see crime escalating if there was no threat of prison. Cars would be stolen, banks would be robbed, houses broken into at a far higher rate because the fear of getting thrown into prison would not be there. What would stop a Brinks truck heist?  Sure, some people would never commit crimes. But even those who don’t agree with it on principle could be driven to do it. If someone’s wife was raped, or child was murdered, or parents’ had their life savings stolen  or their loved one’s house was burnt to the ground in a case of arson, or was the victim of a doctor or nurse with a God complex who intentionally administered drugs that killed some of their patients etc., what would prevent a person from exacting revenge for those crimes? We see and hear often how family members of victims of brutal crimes have to do everything in their power to not take the life of the perpetrator. What stops them? One thing is the laws of the land. Placing trust, whether warranted or not, in the judicial system that the offender will be proven guilty and do hard time. 

It's worth looking at clearance rates. Clearance rates are how police report that "crimes have been solved" but that doesn't mean they've actually been solved. It means somebody was arrested for them. So, when you look at a clearance rate, there is a second caveat. 

I mean, most crimes are never solved. Most crimes don't even lead to an arrest (because there are way more theft crimes than murders). Most sexual assaults are never reported because people don't trust the justice system, or they find it re-traumatizing. This is just a graph of arrests. It doesn't even mean those were right people, or they even went to trial. Most crime that happens is not addressed by our criminal justice system and I think that should change how you view the world but in a good way. I mean, based on this data, one might imagine that the state of society is like...a 50% free for all already. 

Because it means it isn't force or the state that prevents us from being a free for all. It's us. True crime media (which, by the way, I love!) loves to hype up fear. Sell self protection. Sell an extra lock for your back door. But the thing that is protecting you most of the time is that most people are decent. It's not the police. It's communities, decency, support networks. I find it refreshing because I think it would be exhausting to believe that most people are so evil or easy to manipulate that a world without prison would be a free for all.

There's also a weird Kafka-esque nature to the American Prison system. If you can be arrested or killed for sleeping in your apartment or walking down the street or smoking a joint, or protesting peacefully, or any other racialized non-crime or small crime we address, it starts to feel meaningless, nonsensical and doomed from the start. It can create a sort of nihilism, which isn't what any justice system should do. I imagine it's possible to believe that in a sort of panopticon theory, that this is an effective deterrent, but I just don't think it's the primary one. I think the best deterrent to crime that we have is ourselves, our communities, and the support systems and social accountability and values we instill in each other. And to me, prisons do not further those values or help build those communities. 

[Giraffe]

@Antimony I’m asking this out of curiosity (rather than out of “we need prisons because of this!!”) - what is the suggested no-prison alternative to someone like The Convicted Child Predator Duggar? Abolishing prisons are absolutely something I can get behind when it comes to most crimes but not his. I’m convinced he’s not rehabitable (I don’t know the correct word) and as such will still be a danger to children when he’s released, even with an astounding 20 additional years of parole. 

[Howl]

22 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

I’m convinced he’s not rehabitable (I don’t know the correct word)

Steven Sitler, the pedophile protected by Doug Wilson, was termed a "fixated pedophile" -- he can't be rehabilitated to lead  a life free of the compulsion to molest children. 

 

[Bastet]

Two things I think would lower the crime rate and the resulting incarceration: 

1) Legalize drugs. Fewer drug crimes then—close to none if the price on the street is higher than what you would pay with a prescription at a pharmacy. (It would not necessarily increase drug use because street pushers would become rare if they new you could get a prescription if you liked their product but preferred it with dependable potency and purity.) Addicts would not need to resort to robbery and prostitution to support their habit and could thus avoid jail. 
   I’m not speaking in support of drug use, but drugs are here and no war on drugs is going to drive them away. I could argue that the world would be a better place if alcohol didn’t exist, but it does and we accept that dealing with it is part of the human condition. Portugal has legalized drugs, and while the situation there is not perfect—when is it?—the country has not become a drug hell hole.  (That would be the United States.)
2). Increase the minimum wage. If it had kept pace with the sixties, it would now be $23 an hour. Easier to avoid resorting to crime if you can legally provide for yourself and your family. And your children will then be more likely to have the stability we know kids need to avoid crime themselves. Would it increase prices? Sure. But it’s unconscionable to have low prices subsidized by the poor. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Bastet