Wouldn't it be more efficient to just kill the poor, thus eliminating any gap?:bolt:

Okay, but that's not really what you said:

I know that the first quote is what you meant. This is why I've been saying that word choice matters.

Better off, not wealthiest. Better off than them. Basically, the rest of us:P

..or the rest of YOU - many people in prison have a better standard of living than the poorest outside the constraints of incarceration. They have 3 meals provided for them, access to health & dental care at no cost, fitness equipment, tv with cable... and much more.

I can't comment on the poor in the US but in the UK it is not true that those in prison have access to a better standard of living than those outside. The problem in the UK is mostly one of encouraging people to take up the opportunities available. Education being the prime example.

I hear the prison argument again and again - people in prisons get three square meals a day, they have it good, don't have to worry where the next meal is coming from, I should get myself in prison, easy life etc etc.

Thanks to the Welfare State, no-one in this country should ever have to worry about where the next meal in coming from. No-one starves to death (unless parents deliberately starve their children, sadly). The homeless are a moot point - I'm not claiming they have as high a standard of living as prisoners, but they are not generally considered in conversations about "decent hard working people" who are worse off. Three meals a day is not a luxury and prisoners should not be considered pampered for receiving it. The main difference is that those outside have to shop for and prepare their food and make decisions about their own budget/ nutrition. Big chore.

If it were a discussion about a child in foster care who was locked in a room for 20+ hours a day you would not think the carers indulged the child because it had been fed. You would think the child had been punished.

TV with cable? I can't say. But prisoners don't have unlimited access to books.

Most prisoners don't have unlimited access to tv either. The prisons which allow tvs in cells tend to be the ones with the life/long sentence prisoners. Given that they have had their freedom removed, possibly for several decades, it's considered that that is sufficient punishment without making it deliberately harsh. It also helps discipline in prisons if prisoners can gain such perks through good behaviour and have them removed for bad behaviour. Without such a system of perks and incentives all that is open to prisons is to impose ever harsher penalties on prisoners for misbehaviour. Eventually prisoners riot, or require such intensive and violent guarding as to render the system inhumane.

Yea. I have one of those. (TV's) They are usually cool, because you can see the insides of the tv. I got one at a pawn shop and they didn't tell me where it came from until after the purchase.

In the US I think it's that if you can afford one in prison you can buy one, but I'm not certain. (I'm sure good behavior factors in a little as well)
So I have my prison tv already and I'm ready to go?;(

Ohh inhumane??? - the poor things - eff that. They are prisoners - they are supposed to be getting punished. Thought we were concerned for the poor - how bout taking a meal or two a week away from the prisoners and feeding it to some of the poor? There are many options. Our system of deterrence is relatively worthless anyway. Hey, maybe we could let half the people incarcerated for BS drug crimes or traffic tickets out and really put some cash to use in a more positive & constructive way?

Dammit Classicman, how many times do we have to explain that they wouldn't have landed in prison if they weren't poor first? They are in prison not because they made shitty awful choices of their own freewill, but because society forced them to break the law. Get with it man.

*shrug*
I don't know what to say.

Three meals a day isn't luxury.
People do not lack food here.
It's not worth repeating again and again.

The matter of whether prison is a deterrant, to protect the public or a punishment is debatable. Starving prisoners is unlikely to make any of those reasons more effective.

For the record, neither Dana nor I were making excuses for the people in prison. I merely stated that they were not better off than the general population and Dana concurred.

Also. I believe, really believe, that the loss of freedom with all that that encompasses is punishment enough. No longer having the right to dictate when your light will go out at night, when you are able to tak exercise, what you can read or watch, when you can go to the toilet (or in cases where slopping out still occurs, when you get to empty your bucket), overcrowding in cells and in some prisons spending 23 hours a day in said over-crowded cell....these are al unpleasant. Losing your identity and becoming a faceless prison at the mercy of a system that is designed to be cold and unforgiving is hard.

My point is not that prison should be a doddle. But...it is not a holiday camp and prisoners are not living in luxury. It's a hard, often violent life with few bright points and a lot of deep and grinding tedium.

They are prisoners yes. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated humanely. They are after all still human.

*blinks* ok. That's it. I can't argue any of this any more tonight. I should be constructing arguments for the bases of queenly power in medieval Europe.....not trying to articulate political points on here! :P

for the record - i was just chain yanking, ladies.

Ohhh, yanker! I thought they were calling you "wanker." :lol:

*smiles at Lookout* capitalist pig. Don't worry, I'll put in a good word for you with the collective come the great day.