Prison is far too cushy.

They don't need Coca Cola

Ham and beans on the plate, with a glass of water is good enough.

It should not be a place you're comfortable in.

They don't need color TV, internet and exercise equipment. They want to exercise, there's always pushups and situps.

Does anyone remember when Oregon's constitution included the words "rehabilitation", before the "let them eat beans and water, that'll teach 'em" crowd successfully got it stripped out?

A couple of points I made when discussing this with friends last night (and one of my friends was squarely in the "bread & water" camp...)

1. The food program is being run like a cafeteria. Cafeterias have soft drinks as part of normal and customary operations. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that soft drinks are being served in a cafeteria. This is a manufactured controversy.

2. While I find it desirable to reduce soft drink consumption in the interest of health, those beverages will need to be replaced by something else. Drinking only water in the long-run is not necessarily healthy. If we assume that if soft drinks went away, consumption would shift to natural fruit juices, milk, etc., those beverages are still going to cost money. You'll see an increase in health, which can save money in the long run, but you won't see an immediate radical decrease in cafeteria costs.

Thus, this manufactured controversy only makes sense, from a cost perspective, if your goal is to be deliberately punitive. This manufactured controversy is not about cost-containment, it's about firing up an authoritarian-leaning political base.

How about some investigation on the use of cops to raise money by the excessive enforcement of traffic laws? It's rampant on the Oregon Coast between Lincoln City and Newport and is common in small to mid-size cities. I have personally experienced being followed around by cops after dusk, presumably hoping I'd give them some petty excuse to pull me over...

I could care less about Cokes, but one thing we sure as hell don't need for prisoners is frivolous crap like GED programs, addiction treatment, or psychological services. As Joe White says, prison is not supposed to be comfortable, and it sure as hell shouldn't be a place where prisoners might have a chance to sort through their issues.

While we're at it, no fucking reading materials in prison, either. If soap-opera reruns are good enough for Joe White, they're good enough for the scumbags behind bars.

I'm with Joel on this one.

If a 16-year old kid is caught with a doobie at Cruefest, I want to see 5-years on a f$%!ing chain gang!

MINIMUM.

This is the only way to keep a well-ordered society. The imprisonment rate of England and Wales, at 145 per 100,000 people is about the median point in prison rates worldwide. The US is the HIGHEST at 724 per 100,000 people, and Russia takes second place with 581 per 100,000 people.

Once again, America kicks ass!! We're number one! We're number one!

Soft drinks are cheaper than milk, juice or coffee. Guys like Day, who have no background in corrections, see an item like soft drinks or weights and see "waste." It's a way to manage an expanding prison population effectively. Inmates act up, you take away the weights and soda for a week. If you give them water, beans and gruel, you don't give them any reason to behave. I guarantee if you zero out the soda, you'd probably have to add more than 10 officers to maintain order, which would cost more money. Common sense? I don't think so. These guys launch a group, throw bombs, discredit themselves than move on and launch another group. The state, and especially DC is lousy with these political action groups.

Hey, Kevin Mannix and the rest of the dumb-on-crime crowd wanted cable television, internet access, exercise equipment, swimming pools, etc. That was the whole point of Measure 11. Instead of keeping prison inmates in line through the carrot of early release for good behavior (which was exceedingly cost-effective), they wanted a system where prisoners served a full sentence, good behavior or not. Naturally, the only carrot a prison can offer inmates for good behavior are privileges -- rewards that can be revoked as soon as you act up.

Given that Mannix was looking for this outcome and even persuaded Oregon's voters to buy into with "reward prisoners with luxuries instead of early release" measure, he's pretty damn hypocritical to feign outrage about it now. Even last year, he was pushing to expand the "luxuries instead of release" deal to property offenders as well. So what's his problem now?

Bob R wrote:

"Does anyone remember when Oregon's constitution included the words "rehabilitation"........ "

The problem with telling someone that they've got a constitutional right to rehabilitation is that if they end up back in prison, somehow it's your fault because you didn't provide them with what they are entitled to.

Then what?

Changing the persons life is their own responsibility. You can't guarantee it as a 'right'. The person has a free will.

Protecting the public from predators is the state's responsibility. Yes the prison system is deliberately punitive. Did you just now figure that out?

How can you say that forced incarceration need not be deliberately punitive? What an oxymoron.

Do you want to make the case that depriving someone of Coca Cola is cruel and unusual punishment? Go for it, otherwise you've got nothing.

If you happen to read Steve Duin in The Oregonian, you will have noticed that occasionally, instead of his usual sanctimonious invocations of Christian charity, he goes off into homicidal fantasies about the wonderfulness of the death penalty. No doubt Duin would be all for Cokes for death-row inmates if he could just have a chance to slip in a bit of cyanide.

i usually disagree with everything Carla has to say but....this time that second to last paragraph was right on.

There are some rational ideas up in that head of yours Carla.

How about taking nonviolent marijuana offenses off the books? How about legalizing it?

64 billion a year is spent in the us a year on keeping non violent minor drug offenses in jail. this is outlandish and certainly more important than the 700,000 for sodas.

To be clear, the soda issue still bothers me.

Intimating the intention is that inmates will eventually be reduced to a diet of gruel and water is an exaggeration. Meals served in the Oregon prison system are touted as being both tasteful and nutritious. Soda is not needed to supplement that diet.

If true that substituting costly fruit juice or milk for the soda will serve no economic gain, then indeed this idea would be purely punitive. I think when the homework is completed however we will find soda is offered in addition to other drinks, not in place of other drinks.

Kari is probably correct that treats or soda can help to control crowds, but likely only if offered as an incentive or reward, not as a daily free gift. 800k in savings (if that amount is correct) seems like it could go a long way toward the costs of real rehabilitation efforts.

Just because a crime is 'non-violent' doesn't mean the action should be legalized.

"homework is completed however we will find soda is offered in addition to other drinks, not in place of other drinks."

Of course it is offered in addition, but if you take away soda, consumption of the other drinks will undoubtedly increase. It's not the availability alone that costs money, it is the consumption.

Just because a crime is 'non-violent' doesn't mean the action should be legalized.

No, but if an activity is non-violent and does not directly harm other persons or property, then opponents really should have to make a very compelling, credible, factual case as to why people who perform that activity should be locked up. The anti-MJ crusaders have failed to do that after many decades of trying.

Clearly we need to persuade that guy Farhad Monem to come back to the US from Iran or wherever it was he went when he skipped bail in the Oregon Dept. of Corrections scandal a couple of years ago. The guy did a brilliant job of cutting the costs of DOC meals, after all. The guy should be granted immunity in exchange for his expertise in saving $$ for Joe White and other Righteous Taxpayers.

Perhaps these folks will sign on Lars Larson.

After all, he's been such an economic boon to Paul Allen that the radio station Allen bought for $50 million in 1998 increased in price to $11 million today.

That's what you call Doodoo Economics.

It's a publicity stunt -- get it? They're eye-poking the folks who got pop out of public schools.

Sorry to see Mapes give it any ink at all.

When the newly minted Common Sense isn't attacking free enterprise in government facilities, they feed off frivolous bills in Salem's gutters.

Who cares what Ross Day, Kevin Mannix or Russ Walker do to pass the time anyway? OIA obviously doesn't pay the bills.

Salem-News.com obliged by giving Common Sense its 'White Bully Award'

And who gets the Black Bully Award?

Or are only white people bullies?

If Tim King feels that bad about being white, perhaps he should opt for a skin transplant by a qualified medical practitioner.

King explains that "....the "White Bully Award", for signifying and representing the interests of those who are willing to attack the poor, whine endlessly about paying their fair share of taxes...."

He should understand that a lot of whites are poor and are tired of high taxes being described as their 'fair share'.

Socialist utopians who support high taxes because spending Other People's Money makes them feel generous should simply learn to give more of their own on a voluntary basis.

That's REAL generosity, not some phony 'you need to pay more so that the greater good is served'.

Rehabilitation is wonderful for those that want it.

Unfortunately, not everyone wants to go get a job and support themselves.

Forcing someone into a job is called slavery, and we don't do that.

Rehabilitation is a function of the person's free will.

If rehabilitation is a 'right' then it must be 'society's fault' for not providing the recidivist his 'right to be rehabilitated', right?

Umm...am I the only one here who remembers that the sentencing guidelines were implemented to REDUCE prison population? And that the public was so incensed by the early release of violent offenders and the under-punishment of repeat property offenders that that passed Measures 11 and 57 and have consistently voted to INCREASE sentences?

I just don't get it. I'm as liberal as anyone around here, but I refuse to be an apologist for violent and/or repeat criminals like many of the BO bloggers. I absolutely agree that money is better spent up front on education and human services, but that doesn't mean we can declare war on the prison system and let a bunch of dangerous criminals out on the street. Yes, taxes are unpopular, but criminals are even less so. If it comes down to advocating for more taxes or releasing dangerous criminals, I'll be voting with my checkbook, not my life.

While I do agree with the second to last paragraph as well, I think Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" doesn't quite speak to the management of a prison. It does however, make a distinction between society and government that seems to be long lost:

"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer!" Paine, in Common Sense

Just a thought - 'cause I thought it was such a nifty pamphlet.

Cheers, The Skald

I am hoping to address, and perhaps with any luck, initiate a little change in Oregon corrections via my own blog. I'm an admitted amateur at blogging, but, hey - why not give it a try?

Cheers, The Skald

I refuse to acknowledge this our any other "debate" about our prison system. Sentencing reform, mandatory minimums, and soda pop are all just smoke and mirrors from both the left and right so that no one has to admit that all have failed those among us suffering With mental illness. We refuse to buckle down and find a way to pay for treatment so we just lock them up and then "debate" whether they should occasionally get a Coke. I am personally ashamed for mannix that he could be so cruel.

David -

Thank you for your response.

nike jordan melo 1.5

Can anyone explain how you 'rehabilitate' someone who does WANT to be a productive member of society?

How do you make them want that?

Do you force them to take a job if they don't want to work for a living?

Many folks here seem to have the idea that if you just REASON with criminals that they will come around to your point of view and go get a job like a regular person.

If they were reasonable people, they wouldn't be stealing or raping or murdering or committing fraud or selling drugs, would they?

We have the same problem in foreign policy.

Liberals think that if we just REASON with bullies around the world (like Iran, al Qaeda, North Korea , etc) that they'll 'see the light' and be nice folks.

How naive. Would you have reasoned with Hitler? Neville Chamberlain tried it. Even got him to sign an agreement.

Not all people are reasonable. The sooner we understand this basic fact, the better.

We as a society have a right and a duty of self defense from predators.

We as a nation have a right and a duty of self defense from foreign enemies also.

Wake up blue people.

Carla,

I am responding to those bemoaning that 'rehabilitation' is not a guaranteed right under the Oregon constitution.

I would like to know how they wish to rehab those that dont want it.

And if the rehab fails, isn't it then 'societys fault' for not providing the criminal his 'constitutional right' to be rehabilitated?

People are in prison because of choices they made. It is reasonable to assume that they made those choices of their own volition, nobody forced them to steal or rape or murder or commit fraud or sell drugs etc

How do you propose to change their desire to commit the acts they have chosen to commit?

The only strawman I see is yours.

Nobody, certainly not I, said anything about "....all individuals sentenced under the current sentencing guidelines don't want to become productive......"

I said they've chosen to be where they are, and asked how one would propose to change what they want.

If they already have commit crimes under guidelines that prescribed a specified punishment, and you now lower or eliminate that punishment, are you giving them any incentive to change their behavior?

-Joe,

Incarceration is not black and white. Not everyone in prison deserves to have the same fate as your proscribe. If you have a degree, you have wasted it.

Rehab can work and it is infinitely less expensive than locking up every single offender for every crime. I would ask you to look at the proposed Oregon budget. Yes, you have to read. Last I looked it was proposing more money for a new prison and less money for recovery programs. For instance, here in Multnomah County we are going from 160 recovery beds to 16.

There should be a basic level of rights in prison that allows individuals to live humanly and improve their lot in life. While I disagree with the cost of the Coke, the fact that it is offered is not a concern of mine. Likewise, as has been proposed by others on this blog, denying them the right to education is illogical. For many of those in prison, the lack of education is one of the things that got them where they are at! Not to mention that it is a constructive way of keeping them focused on improving themselves.

The libertarian streak in Oregon disgusts me. It is entirely illogical, self-serving, and does not work, except maybe in Somalia.

Carla, OK, I'll bite. The non-violent offenses are generally confined to sentencing levels 5 and below. The first three levels do not result in presumptive prison time NO MATTER HOW BAD THE DEFENDANT'S CRIMINAL HISTORY. Yes, you can literally be a murderer, and you will not go to prison for simple drug or property offenses. At level 5, a person has to have 4 prior non-violent FELONY convictons or more to get a whopping 6-8 month jail sentence. If you're referring to Measure 57, those aren't sentencing guidelines, but rather voter-approved sentences. Surely you are not suggesting that the Legislature should overturn it's own measure, which it referred to the voters with a Democratic majority?

Just for comparison, here are some of the "non-violent" offenses that are classified at level 8 or above, where there's a presumption of a prison sentence - Commmercial Drug Offenses Use of a Minor in Drug Dealing Distributing Drugs to a Minor Possession of a Substantial Quantity of Drugs (10 gr meth, 150 gr marijuana, 5 gr heroin, 200 units LSD, etc)

So, which of these should result in probation? Are you advocating that the use of children in drug offenses should be a probation offense?

"you can literally be a murderer, and you will not go to prison for simple drug or property offenses." - mlw

If someone is a murderer and gets probation for a drug offense are you saying that they were never tried as a murderer? Or have they already served their time as a murderer? Are you assuming that they are a murderer? Is there some reason why the DA is not prosecuting them for being a murderer on top of drug possession?

Stop watching Fox News! Don't make blanket statements without some clarification as to what you mean. It is misleading!

Carla wrote:

"I'm curious as to why this is relevant"

It's only relevant if you expect to have any success in the process of rehabilitation, Carla.

Will someone get a bucket of water please?

I agree with Carla! You have made several logical points here. I work in social services. I can attest that rebab works, as does education for offenders. Is it 100%? No, but those that do recover are made productive citizens able to pay taxes rather than use them. Libertarians don't get this because they are lazy. They want every dime for themselves.

LiberalIncarnate wrote:

"For many of those in prison, the lack of education is one of the things that got them where they are at!"

No, choosing to do wrong got them where they are at.

To imply that smarter people don't do bad things as often as dumber people is illogical.

The choice to do right or wrong is not a function of intelligence.

Intelligent people aren't morally superior to people with lower levels of education (though they often think that they are, thus proving that their education wasnt as great as they were sold).

Dear Carla,

When you say I "left out some pretty important sections from Paine's pamphlet..."

Nahh, I didn't leave 'em out a'purpose ;-) -- like you, I picked what was germaine to the point I was trying to make. Though I would have liked to quote more, I just didn't think quoting the majority of the pamphlet would be appropriate!

My point was probably lost in Paine's better word smithing I guess. Really, his little tract has very little to say about actually managing prisons, but it does remind us that the distinction between society and government is important. I was captured by your title, and well, kind of let down a little by the content. Is this "Common Sense" group claiming to speak within the spirit of Paine's pamphlet? But you're right...

The entire section "OF THE ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL," is fantistico! It is also where your excellent quotation is located. I whole heartedly agree with you -- WTG Mr. Paine! ;-)

A little horn tooting... My latest entry discussed Paine, and that was why your title attracted my attention! I work in corrections and would like to see substantive change. Which is why I agreed with your second to last paragraph!

Oh, and by the way, tell 'em to leave the soda pop alone!

Best Regards, The Skald

The "Common Sense" folks miss the point. Coca Cola is punishment - cruel but not so unusual. It will rot the teeth of inmates, screw up their metabolism with corn syrup leading to obesity and diabetes, and weaken their bones with phosphate overload.

Sweet retribution!

Yes, Jake, and then they can sue the prison system because they were 'forced' to drink the Coca Cola. They had no choice. That was what was provided for them. Poor tortured babies.

I say give them water along with ham and beans, and some veggies.

That's all they need, and it's the most humane thing you can do, give them a good nutritious diet.

Take the money saved on Coca Cola and put it toward more education. A couple hundred grand could go a long way.

Take the money saved on color TV, cable, and exercise machines and put it toward education as well.

If you are saying that education is what makes the difference, let's put the money where your mouth is.

If the blue people on this site really believed what they say, they'd put this money toward education.

But they don't believe it.

Or if they do, they truly don't want to see these folks rehabilitated.

Which is it?

Where O where is Thomas Civiletti? Please come brace this mongrel.

Perhaps I should have said "post prison murderer". For severity levels 1-3, which includes all minor drug offenses and most property offenses, a defendant can have a criminal history of three or more "person" (violent) felony convictions (an "A" on the guidelines), and the presumed sentence is still probation.

The point is this - the sentencing guidelines themselves are NOT hard on non-violent offenders. In fact, they get virtually unlimited chances at probation. Now, that being said, we now have Measure 57, approved by the voters and a Democratic Legislature, which essentially provides a "three strikes" law for certian property offenders. If your objection is to M57, fine, but you should realize that the majority of voters approved it, knowing the fiscal cost.

The point is this - let's focus our efforts on where the people are with us. The public generally supports our positions on human services and public schools. Stop beating up on the already-chronically-underfunded criminal justice system and start talking realistically about how to raise revenue to pay for the programs that really do prevent crimes - education and human services.

I guess you're so conscious of the right's poor form that you can't see that it's the only real difference. Routinely, the international press reports as if everyone know there is no substantive difference in the parties' platforms. To whit, from the Manchester Guardian, on MJ legalization: Schwarzenegger was careful not to say too much – he stopped shorting of saying he was in favour of legalising cannabis now – but his words broke a long-standing taboo among both Republicans and Democrats who have previously felt obliged to say marijuana must remain illegal, and marijuana users and pushers be subject to criminal prosecution.

That hit the nail on the head. Things that both parties insist just must happen, no serious dissent anywhere.

Torridjoe wrote:

"Why are poor whites paying high taxes? (I assume you mean income taxes, and not things like payroll taxes or car registration fees, etc.) Most should be paying just 10%, if anything at all.."

That shows you understand little about taxes.

If the government raises taxes on my doctor, my plumber, and my dentist because they are all 'rich', what will happen?

Will they simply pay the tax and absorb the loss of income?

No, they will raise their rates.

Who will pay the increased rates?

I will when I need their services.

So then, who pays their taxes?

I do.

A tax on one is a tax on all, tj. That's Econ 101, friend.

Joe White sez:

"If the government raises taxes on my doctor, my plumber, and my dentist because they are all 'rich', what will happen? Will they simply pay the tax and absorb the loss of income? No, they will raise their rates. Who will pay the increased rates? I will when I need their services."

And of course there's the converse situation, too, right, Joe? When GOP controlled government in thrall to supply-side dogma cuts tax rates, your doctor, plumber and dentist all reduce what they charge you, right?

Sure they do. In some parallel universe. Perhaps the same parallel universe where reducing marginal tax rates always increases government revenue.

Can't help but agree with mlw's last two paragraphs. We need to raise revenue to pay programs and services that actually have a chance of preventing crime. One of the reasons Oregon's rating on dollars spent on corrections as a percentage of our budget... we tend to be so cheap on everything else!

Joel wrote:

"When GOP controlled government.....cuts tax rates, your doctor, plumber and dentist all reduce what they charge you, right?"

It really galls you when people are able keep the money they've earned, doesn't it?

Joel, Blues never did get supply side economics.

Everytime it's brought up you play your silly games with smarmy sarcasm about how the rich pass on their tax cuts to the poor by just giving it to them.

When businesses and the wealthy get to keep more of their own money, like everyone else, they invest it and spend it leading to more employment at all levels. From increased yaught manuafacturing to more restaurant business. Money moving through the private sector and economy creates jobs, provides incomes, stimulates consuming growth and increased lifestyles.

Tax cuts or low taxes at all levels allows for more spending by low and middle class earners whic also has a trickle up and trickle sideways effect providing stability for all jobs.

Joe White and Richard,

Why don't you both go have a tea party?

Jake--Richard and Joe White have drunk their own Kool-Aid, 25 years after folks like David Stockman, one of Saint Ronnie's supply-side architects, admitted it was all a sham. I especially like Richard's remark about the wonderful trickle-down consequences of "yaught (sic) manufacturing". BRILLIANT! But Richard forgot to mention the way the GOP has created so many new opportunities for those guys walking around with back-mounted leaf blowers. I say let's have another couple of decades of supply-side policy, and we're sure to see an explosion of opportunities for shoe-shiners, footmen, valets and ladies-in-waiting, drivers, and rent-a-cops.

Joe White and Richard are undoubtedly thrilled that the RNC has decided to start referring to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Socialist Party."

The Education of David Stockman

It is galling that station KPOJ runs CS OR commercials. It seems Clear Channel uses KPOJ as a dumping ground for the dregs of the "ad barrel", so I should not be surprised.

Joel wrote:

"Joe White and Richard are undoubtedly thrilled that the RNC has decided to start referring to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Socialist Party." "

I couldn't care less.

I'm much more interested in substance than style.

Obama ran his campaign as a moderate on economic issues and has gone far to the left, as we knew he would.

I pay attention to what people DO, not so much what they SAY.

Obama has taken over the car companies, the banks, soon the energy companies and health care.

When we're all working on the Obama plantation, I'm sure you'll be happy Joel.

Democrats have no exit strategy because they want the economy in continual crisis to win elections.

<h2>FDR won time after time while doing little to actually end the Depression.</h2>