←back to thread

In Maine, prisoners are thriving in remote jobs

(www.mainepublic.org)
245 points voxadam | 4 comments | 22 Sep 25 22:51 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
taurath ◴[22 Sep 25 23:07 UTC] No.45340733[source]▶
If we get serious about actual rehabilitation in prisons instead of punishment there’s never been a better time to be able to learn just about anything on your own time. But we’d have to stop dehumanizing criminals. Dehumanization seems to be the trend that the US is leading on right now.

We can also be concerned about the incentives for prison labor - for profit prisons and all the many service providers that get paid a mint. Phone calls in many prisons are like $10. Labor gangs and the such. It’s just horrible how badly we treat people in the US for some middleman to make money.

replies(10): >>45340773 #>>45340824 #>>45340906 #>>45340974 #>>45340977 #>>45341060 #>>45341686 #>>45341741 #>>45342361 #>>45345007 #
themafia ◴[22 Sep 25 23:17 UTC] No.45340824[source]▶
If you want rehabilitation then you should ensure that they're working for more than slave wages and that money is set aside to be available to them upon their release.

Ensuring they can communicate with their families at no charge would be a huge plus as well.

replies(1): >>45340829 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[22 Sep 25 23:18 UTC] No.45340829[source]▶
Do we have high-quality studies on what facilitates rehabilitation?
replies(2): >>45340889 #>>45341049 #
gdbsjjdn ◴[22 Sep 25 23:44 UTC] No.45341049[source]▶
What we're currently doing is creating a permanent underclass of "criminals" who are viewed as subhuman and used as political fodder. The status quo benefits wealthy people by providing cheap labour and a convenient scapegoat. People who have been incarcerated are impoverished and cut off from careers and social lives, so they can't function outside of prison.

There's lots of evidence that maintaining connection to family, and providing skills training reduces recidivism. You should be asking for studies proving that what we're currently doing is effective or humane.

replies(1): >>45341257 #
8f2ab37a-ed6c ◴[23 Sep 25 00:07 UTC] No.45341257[source]▶
Do we have conclusive evidence that causality isn’t actually reversed here in a large percentage of cases?

As in, a certain % of the population is, very unfortunately and not of their own volition, born with innate antisocial traits. They just happened to roll a 1 at birth on many attributes at once, and are stuck with it for life. Assuming humans are not a blank slate, many said humans will not be re-trainable to be pro-social. They will cause mayhem and misery to those around them unless isolated, humanely, with dignity and compassion, from the rest of society. Given a large enough of a denominator, that’s potentially millions of people.

And fair point around social ties being important here, I wonder what percentage of imprisonment that would prevent.

replies(3): >>45341384 #>>45341609 #>>45342702 #
amiga386 ◴[23 Sep 25 00:23 UTC] No.45341384[source]▶
Recent metaanalysis of intervention effectiveness (2025, UK) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/680101e3da5bb...

In short: humans are not inherently good 'uns or bad 'uns. The social interventions made by friends, families, community, state-run programs, have a discernable effect on reoffending rates.

replies(1): >>45341548 #
1. nomel ◴[23 Sep 25 00:45 UTC] No.45341548[source]▶
“Discernible effect” doesn’t really refute their point, it affirms it. Some aren’t responsive to any of that.

I think it’s logical that you’re both right, with the disagreement being in the ratio. If you honestly think all humans are born equal, I suggest visiting a mental ward, or more relevant here, watching some interviews/analysis of mass murderers. There’s a well accepted, by the medical field, by objective metrics, spectrum of self control, awareness, autonomy, and intelligence, expressed in humans. We’re not all the same. You typing here suggests you’re on the relatively extreme end of the “genetic luck” spectrum.

replies(1): >>45341740 #
2. amiga386 ◴[23 Sep 25 01:16 UTC] No.45341740[source]▶
> If you honestly think all humans are born equal

I don't. But in addition to genetics, babies pop out of rich and poor vaginas. Socioeconomic status is a much stronger indicator for being incarcerated than genetics (not counting "male vs female"). There is also the theory that the children of prisoners grow up without fathers and are more likely to go to prison, thus perpetuating the cycle. Children that lose both parents (to imprisonment, drug addiction, abandonment) and enter foster care or become wards of the state have terrible life outcomes. Not genetic, but familial due to disrupted social support networks.

I also think that if, for example, you get addicted to heroin, and you don't have a good support network, that will be your only life until you're dead. But if you do have a good support network, you have an better chance of getting clean and staying clean.

replies(2): >>45342623 #>>45343057 #
3. nomel ◴[23 Sep 25 03:44 UTC] No.45342623[source]▶
I agree, and I think the other person will too. You’re correct.

But they’re also correct. There will be some subset of the population that will be, and remain, harmful to society. This isn’t even a purely human concept, and can be found in all species with collective/social behavior.

4. 8f2ab37a-ed6c ◴[23 Sep 25 05:16 UTC] No.45343057[source]▶
At least in the US your race is stronger indicator for being incarcerated than your affluence levels. E.g. Black Americans are somewhere 10-30x more likely to be arrested for violent crimes than Asian Americans of similar poverty levels. Race here, similarly to economics, is again a confounding variable for something else that is actual causal to this. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353 . And again, the direction of causality here isn't obvious either.

Most likely it's a combination of genetics, cultural expectations, social support networks, and a litany of other elements that all come together to affect the ultimate outcome. Which aligns with your thesis around one's support network making a huge difference. But it's just important to point out that poverty by itself is not causal of crime, it simply makes it more likely given many other factors such as culture and community. It's mildly predictive, but up to a point.

Funnily enough, as a side-note, the stats show that most white-collar crime is committed by well-educated and affluent white men in their forties or older, causing a lot more financial harm than your everyday street crime added up.