Volunteered for Books for Prisoners in Portland for a time.
Prisoners would write asking for subjects, not by title since that was super unlikely. Often we would mail a mix of magazines and books.
Every jail has different rules. Each package would get custom consideration for which jail it was going to.
Sometimes stuff would just get confiscated for no reason.
Some of the letters were sad to read. The appreciation and expression of thanks for some random book previously sent.
The date it was read by a volunteer and responded to would be sometimes several months from the date it was written.
It did spur my interest in criminal justice system to some extent. But mostly I took away how sad the conditions were on the inside. As I took for granted my ability to choose and read whatever I liked, whenever I liked.
Yes, this seems needlessly restrictive. What's the harm in letting someone with nothing better to do read Harry Potter? I could imagine restrictions on certain kinds of books... like how to cover up forensic evidence, or how to tie knots, or whatever... but Harry Potter, or computer programming?
Also keep in mind that guards are often the ones smuggling in comfort items and drugs. I imagine they don't like it when someone is sending prisoners things for free that they would otherwise have to get through the black markets in the prisons.
>Treating prisoners as subhuman is a management practice.
Slight correction: Treating prisoners as subhuman is a societal practice. (At least, in the societal context that this discussion and the article are about.)
While I was in prison, I received The Rise of the Creative Class. I also received an Artificial Intelligence textbook as well. And I received Headstrong.
I did a lot of reading. In fact, once I got a chance to go to the computer lab, I wrote upwards of 100 articles. I wrote articles about introductory AI, health, and science.
The overall experience of prison monumentally sucked. From the thin mattresses on the beds to the extreme lack of stimulating things to do...but I got through it. Having books sent by my dad really did help the experience.
inmates are unable to receive used books in San Diego county jails. the books must be sent new directly from the book store. this greatly increases the cost of some books. also, due to state-local policies, some inmates do up to 6 years in county jail. county is quite a bit worse than prison in California....there's way less to do.
Jails are run by the local municipal or regional governments and generally speaking only house inmates for sentences of less than a year. San Diego appears to be an outlier with that 6+ year figure.
A prison is run by the state and is geared towards those with much longer sentences.
California’s horribly overcrowded prisons were found to be unconstitutional (cruel & unusual punishment), so they were under a court order to fix it. The “solution” was to transfer lots of prisoners to county jails.
In Massachusetts You can get as long as a 2 1/2 year sentence in county jail. You also can't get a state prison sentence from a district court. You have to be indicted and sentenced in Superior Court to do state prison time. In theory You could be sentenced to 3 consecutive 2 1/2 year county jail sentences in a District Court, that is rare, I believe. Contempt of Court is an outlier that is served in a county jail, but with a possible life sentence.
Generally jail is where you are held before a trial, or for short terms for minor crimes, prison is for serving your sentence after your conviction. This varies by locality.
Jail is for misdemeanor sentences, less than 1 year.
Prison is for felony crimes, 1 or more year.
Jail is also used as a holding area till someone is transferred to prison.
In the US the difference is that jails house people before trial and for misdemeanor sentences (generally less than one year) and prisons are for felony sentences (generally greater than one year).
The circumstances under which Human Rights can be legitimately curtailed are interesting. The conventions generally distinguishes between some rights like freedom from torture as absolute, while others such as various freedoms can be legitimately curtailed to balance the needs of society.
Access to books would fall under the right to education, but I'm not sure if that's a right recognised under the US constitution and the US is not meaningfully or blindingly subscribed to any international treaties on human rights.
The circumstances under which Human Rights can be legitimately curtailed are interesting. The conventions generally distinguishes between some rights like freedom from torture as absolute, while others such as various freedoms can be legitimately curtailed to balance the needs of society.
Access to books would fall under the right to education, but I'm not sure if that's a right recognised under the US constitution and the US is not meaningfully subscribed to any international treaties on human rights.
Does that include all forms of stimulation, or do the jailers get to pick which kind? Are all needs rights? If so, is a famine an excuse for a human rights violation (implying that there are circumstantial excuses for violating human rights), or are people living in poor countries forced to be human rights violators?
You can pick anything you want, and say people should have it, but if you want to say there are no excuses for human rights violations then you can't pick anything you want and call it a right.
On the other hand, if you want it to be widely accepted that there are excuses for human rights violations, then it's strongly in your interest to have as many rights as possible. Didn't Saudi Arabia, notorious rights violator, want internet to be declared a right?
My definition of a human right is human rights are inalienable, and they do not require someone else to provide it. The purpose of government is to protect those rights. (As written in the Declaration of Independence.)
The point of jail is to protect society from people who violate other peoples' rights. Jail shouldn't be about punishment, torture, etc.
It's well known that removing stimulation from people causes them to go insane. Hence, such is tantamount from torture. While that isn't specifically about book reading, preventing a person from reading, human contact, etc., is removing stimulation. Removing all stimulation violates human rights.
What's your definition of a human right, anything that a first-world citizen wants to have, or an inalienable "property" of right and wrong? If it's the first, then there's nothing wrong with a third world dictator that doesn't feel they have the luxury of allowing rights. If it's the second, then you can't have all of these positive rights.
>So while going to prison is "never lucky", he says, he considers himself fortunate to have been signed up for a programme called Storybook Dads.
>This gives prisoners with young children a chance to spend time in a studio recording bedtime stories, which are then sent to their families at home on CD or DVD.
Prisoners would write asking for subjects, not by title since that was super unlikely. Often we would mail a mix of magazines and books.
Every jail has different rules. Each package would get custom consideration for which jail it was going to.
Sometimes stuff would just get confiscated for no reason.
Some of the letters were sad to read. The appreciation and expression of thanks for some random book previously sent.
The date it was read by a volunteer and responded to would be sometimes several months from the date it was written.
It did spur my interest in criminal justice system to some extent. But mostly I took away how sad the conditions were on the inside. As I took for granted my ability to choose and read whatever I liked, whenever I liked.