The application of voice print technology to identify which student or students are speaking in turn (or out of turn) should prove a blessing to substitute teachers (and many full time teachers, as well). A computer on the teacher’s desk (or even a screen on the wall visible to the entire classroom) makes it easy to recognize students by name and give them credit for classroom participation and more importantly to identify those who are talking out of turn or speaking rudely to the instructor so they may be disciplined.
Maybe it’s some dark Orwellian impulse lurking deep inside my soul but I would combine the voice print with television cameras (with DVR capacity) focused on the students in the class to provide recorded proof of misbehavior that the school disciplinarian (usually an assistant principal) can review and parents can be confronted with (should they protest juniors innocence). Television cameras would certainly help spot cell phone violations in the classroom and to catch cheaters when proctoring exams.
Certainly we shouldn’t think twice about privacy invasion inside correctional facilities. Ironically it’s corrections staff and their unions that pose the biggest obstacle to televised monitoring inside prisons. Now I haven’t worked in corrections for some fifteen years so, maybe progress has been made (but my recommendations for television monitoring got short shrift when I proposed it to a friendly administration). I knew better than to suggest voice print technology to this crowd.
Television cameras (with DVR capacity and voice print technology) should be focused on the day room, exercise yard, dining hall, corridor and (where applicable) dorm of every correctional facility. This not only provides an audio-visual record for evidence but with feeds to the security control center it can serve to warn security of the hazards they face when summoned to an emergency taking place at any of these locations.
Nothing could do more to reduce the traffic in contraband between inmates and from those correctional staff who compromise prison security by acting as a conduit for contraband. Voiceprint would also be especially valuable in determining which inmate(s) was the agitator or instigator in altercations between inmates. It also should provide evidence of bullying when one or more inmates pressure an inmate for property or sexual favors. The combination of television and voice print technology would revolutionize corrections.
Chapter 10: The Prison Peace Corps
A tough “Law and Order” political posture has increased the number of felons locked up and the length of time these felons remain incarcerated. This carries a high price tag, not just in the cost of new prison construction but also in the high cost of staffing new prisons (and new wings on existing prisons). The need for alternatives to our ever-burgeoning prisons is evident to anyone employed in the criminal justice system.
To recoup the costs through prison labor, we must either produce goods at an unfair competitive advantage with business operations in the private sector or we must employ the prison labor force outside the prison perimeter on public works projects. The former is an anathema to both private businesses and labor unions, and the latter poses the risk of unacceptably higher escape rates.
Historically other nations have finessed this dilemma through the development of penal colonies. Penal colonies reduce prison costs if only in terms of prison construction and staffing. Staff savings are realized in two ways. By isolating the prison there is a reduced need for perimeter security, as apprehension of escapees is much easier in a foreign land, where escaped convicts cannot easily blend in with the local population. The second and more significant reduction in cost is realized through the hiring of prison staff from the host country where labor costs are lower (penal colonies typically hosted by third world countries).
Penal colonies fell into disrepute due to the inhumane treatment and living conditions that have been historically characteristic of them. Analyzed from a purely rational perspective, there are no sound reasons why a modern penal colony need be any less humane in prisoner treatment and living conditions than any modern domestic prison. The humane treatment and decent living conditions of our modern prisons are primarily the function of enlightened correctional philosophy, carried out by an effective prison administration through staff training, staff discipline and the thorough and continual first hand monitoring of prison conditions and prisoner treatment.
The only aspect of prison life that should prove to be harsher in a penal colony than in a domestic prison is the geographical barrier it presents to the communication and visitation of prisoners with their loved ones. Thanks to modern technology such as Skype the communication barrier could be easily overcome. Working conditions for the prisoners at the penal colony need be no worse than those of common laborers in the States.
In the late Seventies, when I originally drafted this proposal I envisioned a Prison Peace Corps in Brazil. Today Brazil is in much less need of rudimentary Peace Corps services than it was then. But there are still dozens of developing nations (perhaps Brazil, as well) that should welcome the services of a Prison Peace Corps and the jobs generated by one or more penal colony facilities within their borders. Of course we must rule out all but those developing nations who enjoy a stable democracy. It would never do to place a penal colony in a politically unstable country or in a dictatorship.
The Prison Peace Corps is not premised upon a recoup of prison costs through the productive output of the inmate labor force. Rather, the productive output of the prison labor force serves as work restitution in service to the host country. It thus acts both as an inducement for the host country to accept American penal colonies in their midst and as a form of foreign aid to the developing nation. Hence, it serves the interests of the host country, while it lowers the cost of our prison system and provides convicts with a constructive, worthwhile activity during the period of their incarceration. If we are to have any chance of rehabilitating prisoners for return to society than we must find ways to engage them in constructive, worthwhile endeavors (rather than lifting weights in the yard and watching television in the day room).
Huge savings in prison costs can be readily effected by employing the labor force of the host country in the construction of the facilities for housing prisoners and in staffing the penal colonies as: security officers (guards), support services staff and middle managers. Roughly ninety cents on the dollar is spent on staff wages and fringe benefits. Costs can easily be cut in half through the employment of the host countries labor force. This would more than offset the costs or transporting prisoners to and from the host countries.
Those who object on the grounds that we’ll be exporting jobs in the correctional field, need be reminded that although we want more prisons, nobody wants to have them in their backyard (especially if you tell them that the prisoners will be working outside the prison perimeter in their backyard). Having it both ways bars almost every solution to any problem.
I strongly suggest that prisoner participation be made voluntary. Fat chance of that unless you provide one or more inducements. The first inducement would naturally be a reduction in sentence for time served in a penal colony. This makes perfect sense for two reasons. One because this is the most powerful motivator for most prisoners and two because we have far too many of our citizens incarcerated (only repressive regimes compare to our rate of imprisonment). The other inducements are better food than in domestic prisons and a small hourly wage for the work they perform, which can be spent in a canteen or sent home to family (unless they owe restitution which must be paid first).
Whenever the inducement of sentence reduction comes into play it almost always means that violent offenders and sex offenders will be excluded from participation. Generally speaking this is a good rule of thumb but an exception should be made for those homicide offenders who have no prior criminal history and whose killing was not connected to any other form of criminal behavior (e.g. in the course of a robbery, a burglary or any other felonious conduct, also if the victim was a police officer acting in the performance of their duties). I suggest this e
xception for homicide offenders, based upon my 28 years experience in corrections, during which I learned (as other corrections staff had) that these offenders are the lowest risk for the commission of any further antisocial acts both in prison and after release from prison. Of course only those with parole dates less than ten years away should be considered for a sentence reduction and inclusion in the program.
This proposal should be initiated by the Federal Government or by State Government with permission and oversight of the Federal Government. By its international nature, oversight including strict guidelines set by the Federal Government would be a must. Such a program should strengthen the relationship with the host countries involved and improve our prison system because it offers convicts a way to improve themselves by doing something productive with their lives that helps those of a nation less fortunate then themselves (as American Citizens, that is). If folks are serious about deficit reduction then reducing the prison population and reducing the high cost of our prison system should enjoy a high priority.
Chapter 11: The Living Death Sentence
Let us acknowledge at the outset, that Living Death is an oxymoron. Nevertheless in this particular context it is the phrase chosen to convey the central premise, that it takes the place of the Death Sentence, which I morally oppose and believe that this nation should also morally oppose. For those of you, who favor the death sentence I must remind you (as I’m sure most of you are aware) that this nations enforcement of the death penalty (capricious as the State in which the felony was committed) puts us in the company of backward, repressive regimes. All of our fellow modern democratic nations have abolished the death penalty. Our obduracy does not serve us well, in fact it serves us poorly in the high cost of appeals every death sentence entails and in blocking extradition on homicides by nations who otherwise honor our extradition requests. Finally, it has been proven conclusively that it has absolutely zero value in deterrence and with that I hope we can move on.
Victims families complain that a lesser punishment than the death penalty is unfair because the victim and the victims family shall never enjoy each others company again, the victim shall never see their children and or nieces and nephews grow up and that they shall never enjoy the pleasures afforded to us by nature. Whereas, the felon who murdered the victim shall continue to enjoy as much, even if imprisoned without possibility of parole.
These objections of the victims are fair and valid and any penalty short of execution needs to meet them, as far as possible. These are the first concerns that the living death sentence attempts to address through harsher restrictions on felons receiving a life without possibility of parole. Under the Living Death sentence the prisoner loses all contact with the outside world, which means:
1.) No visitors.*
2.) No mail to or from the inmate.*
3.) No phone calls to or from the inmate.*
4.) No communication by nor access to the Internet.
5.) No access to television nor radio.
6.) No access to newspapers or magazines.
7.) Access to books is limited to law books, or books originally published ninety or more years ago and approved by the warden or warden’s designee. All but law books the inmate would read on an e-book reader (e.g. Kindle).
*Exceptions to restrictions on visitors, mail and phone calls would be allowed for legal appeals or for legal matters of interest to the State.
These rules insure that the inmate not only will never see or hear from friends and family but that they shall never hear of them through any form of media (this is one reason for the ninety year rule on books).
To curtail the pleasure that the inmate can derive from nature the cell block for Living Death Sentence inmates would have no windows to view the outside world and exercise would be confined to an indoor track for running or walking. Access to a gym or to gym equipment would be denied unless medically required for physical therapy. The aerobic activities of walking or running are adequate for maintaining good health. Strength training is against the interests of prison security as it makes the inmate more difficult to physically control in those instances when physical intervention of prison staff is needed to maintain a secure facility. Why it is common practice in prisons to allow inmates access to weights and other strength training equipment shall always remain a total mystery to me. I have no idea why prison guards have not insisted on an end to this counterproductive policy.
In the interest of keeping the inmates daily life as austere, as is reasonable for existence in a prison environment, table games would be confined to cards, chess and checkers. No other recreational facilities or equipment would be permitted. Cells would provide no more than the basic built in bed, sink, toilet and built in desk and chair. A non-denominational chapel with a television screen would provide a religious service for each major religion and a chaplain would be available for spiritual counsel. Otherwise constitutional protections of religious freedom would be null and void. Inmates would enjoy no freedom of dress or personal grooming. They would wear prison jumpsuits, no head cover, short-cropped hair and a clean-shaven face regardless of religious preferences. They would not be allowed desserts, sweets, tobacco products or caffeinated beverages or sweetened beverages.
The Living Death Sentence could be enacted into law State by State or it could be enabled through Federal legislation. Despite it’s intent of abolishing the death penalty, I am certain it would face court challenges that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment. I should hope that the Living Death Sentence would be defended as providing better living conditions than those afforded to our service men and women who risk life and limb in combat zones exposed to the elements in horrid climes. And of course, Monks take on such life styles voluntarily. Perhaps the absolute deprivation of exposure to the great outdoors could not withstand a court challenge but this is not critical to the effectiveness of the sentence. Long live, Living Death!
Chapter 12: Limited Term Limits
Extremists and Tea Party types are forever extolling the virtues of term limits and politicians get elected promising to serve only one term (only to renege when in office). And while the concept is laughably simplistic, in its aim of replacing career politicians with a brave new citizens legislature and congress, it does have merit as a half step. Term limits is one of those instances when half a loaf is not just better than one but is better by far than the whole loaf would be. Strict term limits on our State Legislatures and on Congress would give us a government of rank amateurs. Our elected officials would no sooner learn the ropes then they would be barred from office.
Nevertheless, term limits warrant serious consideration because the power of incumbency keeps politicians entrenched in office with only a rare challenger who can defeat them (even when an angry public decides to throw the rascals out). The ideal is a form of term limits that keeps the best experienced leaders in office while diminishing the advantages that incumbency affords those political hacks who keep winning, based more on name recognition than their performance in office.
What I call Limited Term Limits, would set term limits on half of your Legislative seats and Congressional seats, while the remaining half enjoy unlimited terms. Of course if this were done arbitrarily, it would be patently unfair. But it may be achieved with near perfect fairness. The secret is to pair up all of our Legislative and Congressional districts with a neighboring district. This way each paired district (blended into one larger district) shall be served by two legislators and two congressmen. One of those two shall become the Limited Term Seat and the other shall be the Unlimited Term Seat. States with only one Congressional seat couldn’t be paired, so their seat would remain an Unlimited Term Seat. Likewise in States where an odd number of Legislative and/or Congressional seats yield an odd seat out (that was unpaired) that seat would be an Unlimited Term Seat.
United States Senators are already paired in each State serving the entire State so the only challenge is fair conversion of one seat
to a Limited Term Seat while the other remains an Unlimited Term Seat. A Senate term is six years. The Constitution arranged for a third of the Senate seats to run for election every two years in what are called Classes I & II & III. Senators from the same States are never in the same Class so their terms never end in the same election year. So there would be no way to make the conversion with perfect fairness unless you phased it in over a long period of time. By phasing it in over a long period of time you choose the seat for conversion through attrition. The first of each States seats that was vacated by death, resignation, impeachment or defeat in an election would become the Limited Term Seat. It would take time but eventually half of all Senate Seats would be Limited Term Seats.
I strongly advise that the Limited Term Seats be limited to two terms (not one) so that the occupant of the Limited Term Seat has sufficient time in office to establish competitive name recognition. This would allow them to compete on a more level playing field for the Unlimited Term Seat should they choose to challenge for that office. One would imagine that if a Democrat filled the Unlimited Term Seat, that a Republican (at the end of their second term in the Limited Term Seat) would definitely challenge the Democrat and vice versa. Primary challenges would occur but would certainly be discouraged when political bosses thought it was not in the Parties interest. I would think that the Party leaders would try to avoid such primary contests by steering the second term Limited Termers to another office (e.g. a State Legislator to a Congressional seat, a Congressman to a Senate seat and a Senator to a Governors seat).
The Limited Term Seats would keep new blood flowing into the chambers and there would certainly be many of those who chose to retire from politics after serving two terms. This provides some of the citizen legislators and Congressmen that term limits advocates favor. The Unlimited Term Seats will maintain the collegial atmosphere that helps members work across the aisle while providing continuity. There is next to no chance that Limited Term Limits could achieve Amendment of the Constitution to change the structure of Federal Government unless it worked its way up from State Legislatures first. If the laboratory of one or two states demonstrated that Limited Term Limits were more effective for governing then imitation by other States could lead to Federal reform, as well.
American Dreams (The Idea Book) Page 3
