according to a california government website, spends spends over 130 grand per inmate per year. that includes housing, food, clothing, medical bills, whatever skills training they offer inmates, security, facility maintenance, etc.
according to the thread, inmates claim they get about $180 per month. we're going to ignore "private" firefighters, because that's a whole other ball of wax.
Multiply that by 12 months in a year, and you get about $2,160 per year per inmate. according to indeed.com, the average starting salary for a firefighter is about 55 grand.
So, it costs the state of california, conservatively, $133,000 per inmate per year, and the inmates are doing work that starts at about $55,000 a year. obviously these numbers are a guestimate and median respectively, but we can get an idea of what we're looking at.
$133,000 - $55,000 = $78,000 plus that previously mentioned $2,160 most likely added to their commissary account.
I hate to defend california, but in this case, i'd say the prisoners are getting off light, and off-setting the cost of the state taking care of them during their incarceration, if only partially. As long as they're being released when they're supposed to be, unlike under that evil bitch kamala, I don't really see the problem.
As long as they're being released when they're supposed to be
That's a huge part of the problem that gets buried in this discussion about "they need to offset their cost!"
Why would any company give up nearly free labor that cannot quit and can be literally punished physically for complaining?
Kamala alone showed how that perverse incentive is easily and constantly exploited, and she is a complete retard.
The only way its not a problem is if you trust the entire fucking legal system to be paragons of morality and restraint. Which if you are that gullible after the last few years, then you are beyond hope. And if you agree you can't do so, that's why you don't open doors like this without considerable boundaries in place.
you raise a fair point. governments do like to abuse power. I don't have a good answer to this question, other than demanding accountability and transparency, and even those are fairly weak stopgaps...
I don't have great answers either, because as you and many pointed out it can have a hugely positive effect. But that applies to most government programs too, and we rightfully criticize those for the abuses possible rather than the benefits.
This whole situation just feels like them knowing "who would defend criminals?!" and then using that to keep us arguing like most do here in favor of it just because "lol just don't do crime bro."
Which isn't even an incorrect argument, but I've seen a good man put in jail for child support by a woman who had another man's baby but claimed him the father and he refused to pay. So the bar for being put in isn't high enough for that level of dismissal either.
according to a california government website, spends spends over 130 grand per inmate per year. that includes housing, food, clothing, medical bills, whatever skills training they offer inmates, security, facility maintenance, etc.
according to the thread, inmates claim they get about $180 per month. we're going to ignore "private" firefighters, because that's a whole other ball of wax.
Multiply that by 12 months in a year, and you get about $2,160 per year per inmate. according to indeed.com, the average starting salary for a firefighter is about 55 grand.
So, it costs the state of california, conservatively, $133,000 per inmate per year, and the inmates are doing work that starts at about $55,000 a year. obviously these numbers are a guestimate and median respectively, but we can get an idea of what we're looking at.
$133,000 - $55,000 = $78,000 plus that previously mentioned $2,160 most likely added to their commissary account.
I hate to defend california, but in this case, i'd say the prisoners are getting off light, and off-setting the cost of the state taking care of them during their incarceration, if only partially. As long as they're being released when they're supposed to be, unlike under that evil bitch kamala, I don't really see the problem.
That's a huge part of the problem that gets buried in this discussion about "they need to offset their cost!"
Why would any company give up nearly free labor that cannot quit and can be literally punished physically for complaining?
Kamala alone showed how that perverse incentive is easily and constantly exploited, and she is a complete retard.
The only way its not a problem is if you trust the entire fucking legal system to be paragons of morality and restraint. Which if you are that gullible after the last few years, then you are beyond hope. And if you agree you can't do so, that's why you don't open doors like this without considerable boundaries in place.
you raise a fair point. governments do like to abuse power. I don't have a good answer to this question, other than demanding accountability and transparency, and even those are fairly weak stopgaps...
I don't have great answers either, because as you and many pointed out it can have a hugely positive effect. But that applies to most government programs too, and we rightfully criticize those for the abuses possible rather than the benefits.
This whole situation just feels like them knowing "who would defend criminals?!" and then using that to keep us arguing like most do here in favor of it just because "lol just don't do crime bro."
Which isn't even an incorrect argument, but I've seen a good man put in jail for child support by a woman who had another man's baby but claimed him the father and he refused to pay. So the bar for being put in isn't high enough for that level of dismissal either.
True...
on the other hand, if life came with easy answers, it wouldn't be any fun, I guess...