Incarceration in the US

[piece-itpete]

What more does a jail need, than be (generally) clean and (absolutely) secure? In another life I've seen the inside of a couple of them. If someone wanted the taxpayers to get us a new flatscreen with surround and perhaps a t-bone or two we'd have been fine with it, but most would've said 'suckers' under their breath.

That said, I was in one in partic that was truly awful, disgustingly filthy, and a darn good candidate for being a poster boy for privatization. But most are indeed clean.

Comb, I'm fine with my local cops knocking some heads, in general. But over here at least, a large amount of them no longer work for us, they work for the system. D, this is where I both agree and disagree with you. It doesn't have to be privatized to become corrupt. Police - judges - fines - pay police - judges - fines ad infinum.

Wait till MAD gets their way and illegal BOC gets dropped to .05%. Then we can stick all kinds of suburban housewives in jail and clean out their savings accounts.

Pete

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Comb, I'm fine with my local cops knocking some heads, in general. But over here at least, a large amount of them no longer work for us, they work for the system. D, this is where I both agree and disagree with you. It doesn't have to be privatized to become corrupt. Police - judges - fines - pay police - judges - fines ad infinum.

Pete

Problem is it comes down to trust and common sense. In the 1950's, if a child was caught scrumping apples it wasn't unknown for a cop to give him a cuff round the ear. Not hard enough to hurt, but hard enough to embarrass; to show him up in front of his friends. If the child was caught playing on a bomb-site left over from WW2 the cuff would be hard enough to hurt. Better to leave a temporary mark than have to explain to the parents that little Johnny's under half a ton of rubble because a wall collapsed.

But what would happen now if a kid comes home crying that a policeman had hit him? Would the parents consider that there may have been a valid reason, or react with anger first?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Combwork

Problem is it comes down to trust and common sense. In the 1950's, if a child was caught scrumping apples it wasn't unknown for a cop to give him a cuff round the ear. Not hard enough to hurt, but hard enough to embarrass; to show him up in front of his friends. If the child was caught playing on a bomb-site left over from WW2 the cuff would be hard enough to hurt. Better to leave a temporary mark than have to explain to the parents that little Johnny's under half a ton of rubble because a wall collapsed.

But what would happen now if a kid comes home crying that a policeman had hit him? Would the parents consider that there may have been a valid reason, or react with anger first?

Here? Lawsuits. The parents would see the marks on their kid and see dollar signs. $$$$$. Then, this would lead to more regulation disallowing police to "assault" people.

Actually, I believe such things have already come to pass, both here and in your corner of the world.

Dave