if hospitals are penalized for readmissions of the same condition ..shouldn't

[srican69]

The payment policy be applied to PRISONS.

Prisons are supposed to be correctional facilities... So if the private prisons cannot turn inmates into useful members of society - why should taxpayers foot the bill for repeat offenders. In fact it seems to me that having repeat offenders is very profitable for the for profit prisons.. Its is like having loyal customers paid for by the state.


This seems wrong

[AleksS]

1. Interesting thought

Interesting thought, though I wonder if a positive incentive would be better--

If inmate X completes his parole with no violations, the prison gets $Y
If inmate X stays out of the system for Y years after his term is up, the prison gets $Z.

I find it hard to blame the prison if the prisoner is just a messed up person, but I could get behind rewarding prisons that actually get rehabilitation right.

[srican69]

5. agreed.. that would be a much easier sell although

It would mean withholding some payment if we are to do it within current budget

[YarnAddict]

2. So--

are you advocating that people not be released once they have served their sentences?

[spinbaby]

3. I don't think that was the point

I think the point was that prisons should be for rehabilitation, so that former convicts can be useful members of society when they're released.

[YarnAddict]

4. Yes, they should be

but studies have shown that the rate of recidivism for child molesters (just as an example) is astronomical, and that their preference can't be changed or well-controlled. I think the same holds true for other sexual assaults, as well. The alternative to rehabilitation would seem to be lifetime imprisonment.

While I think anyone who sexually abuses a child or a woman should be locked up forever with no chance for parole, that "solution" would create a whole bunch of new problems--overcrowding, short-staffing, etc.--which would make it harder to rehabilitate anyone.