In what is commonly called “pay-to-stay” or “private jail,” a constellation of small city jails — at least 26 of them in Los Angeles and Orange counties — open their doors to defendants who can afford the option.
The original comment was really just intended to point out the shit take in the article. It spends a lot of time talking about how bad people can pay money to get jail accommodations that are less awful, but its tone is overwhelmingly that the problem is that nicer accommodations are available for people who pay (which I do agree should not be a thing), but its implication is that everyone should have to be subject to the same awful conditions, not that the conditions should be improved for everyone regardless of their economic position. It sounds like they’re saying, ‘Some criminals are able to spend their time in jail in conditions that aren’t awful and dangerous, isn’t that terrible? You should be angry about that.’
The stance I was taking is that if we’re going to be mad about something, it should be that jails are so awful by default.
This seems to suggest that low-effort, generic solutions don’t work, but that more personalized, targeted solutions tailored to the individual are effective. That tracks with what I think we all would assume to be true.
I think it’s also worth noting that the article is talking about jails, not prisons. In theory, criminals sentenced to time in jail, rather than prison, would be the prime candidates for a focus on reducing recidivism, rehabilitation, and re-integration into society.
The original comment was really just intended to point out the shit take in the article. It spends a lot of time talking about how bad people can pay money to get jail accommodations that are less awful, but its tone is overwhelmingly that the problem is that nicer accommodations are available for people who pay (which I do agree should not be a thing), but its implication is that everyone should have to be subject to the same awful conditions, not that the conditions should be improved for everyone regardless of their economic position. It sounds like they’re saying, ‘Some criminals are able to spend their time in jail in conditions that aren’t awful and dangerous, isn’t that terrible? You should be angry about that.’
The stance I was taking is that if we’re going to be mad about something, it should be that jails are so awful by default.
I don’t have access to this journal, unfortunately.
This seems to suggest that low-effort, generic solutions don’t work, but that more personalized, targeted solutions tailored to the individual are effective. That tracks with what I think we all would assume to be true.
I think it’s also worth noting that the article is talking about jails, not prisons. In theory, criminals sentenced to time in jail, rather than prison, would be the prime candidates for a focus on reducing recidivism, rehabilitation, and re-integration into society.