[basil]

So--fry the really bad ones, Problem solved.

[narby]

They're forgetting that we went to the lockem-up attitude in the 80's, because we'd already tried the coddle approach and it was a miserable failure. The steady reduction in crime rate is proof that lockem-up works.

Of course, there's less work for lawyers and other government workers if fewer crooks are out and about performing their crimes. I'm sure that's what this is about.

[Servant of the 9]

If you are gonna lock people up for life, then 'rehabilitation' is a preposterous waste of money.

So9

[geedee]

This article is right on. As I devout Texan, I take it upon myself to rethink our position of either warehousing for a long, long time time or nuking every felon sumbitch who decides to ply his trade in our beloved state.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . nah, we like things the way they are.

I'm also sure I speak for my fellow Texans as I show our collective appreciation for those concerned liberal feel-gooders . . . who seem to think there neither has been nor ever will be a felon so vile that a little group-hug won't cure him or her of all their felonious tendencies . . . by saying, "Plant one on me, baby, and mind your own f'ing bizness."

[Dr Warmoose]

They were held in tiny, 65-square-foot cells for 23 hours a day with an hour out for exercise....[yet] It costs the state an average of $23,000 a year to keep someone behind bars at one of its 30 other institutions. At Supermax, it costs nearly twice as much.

What is there to do with someone who is locked away twenty-three hours of the day that makes it cost three times as much? Premium cable service? four-star accomodations and food?

Supermax prison, a high-tech fortress to hold the "worst of the worst."... [and] The architects left no room for programs because the inmates there were, by definition, too violent or uncooperative to take advantage of rehabilitation.

Yet they talk in terms of non-violent "drug offenders" who are in need of rehabilitation. Clearly this is another Leftist editorial trying to pass as a objective story.

"But if you want to reduce recidivism in the most cost-effective way possible, then the research is pretty clear.

Depends on who we are talking about, if it is about "non-violent drug offenders" why bring up Supermax? But if we are talking about Supermax and the people it was designed to hold aka. "The Worst of the Worst", then rehab is senseless and one should follow the Texas model and just execute them. I understand that the recividism rates for those who are given the Deep Sleep are much lower than the national average.

[GovernmentShrinker]

"First of all, it's inhumane. Second, it has no program space," she said.

Earth to Ms. Saar: The inmates of these prisons are inhumane. They don't need programs, they need to be kept securely caged, so they don't kill innocent prison staffers, or escape and kill innocent people on the outside. Candidates for rehabilitation don't get sent to Supermax, so there is no need for any rehabilitation services there.

[Willie Green]

ping

[Britton J Wingfield]

I think we need to just do a better job at criminal triage. Some of them do indeed belong in a supermax. Conversely, many should never have been jailed in the first place.

[John Locke]

But if you want to reduce recidivism in the most cost-effective way possible, then the research is pretty clear.

Yes, I think the results of ongoing French research into this problem are indeed pretty clear: