Chino prison commercial diver training program

[Akimbo]

Independent of whether you support the program or not, the “ultimately paid back through taxes” argument is largely specious because there are so few diving jobs in California.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

You know we have already read your opinion. Your defense of it and your opinion of everyone else who doesn't agree with you. Just based off of those who have participated in this thread so far you still sit with the minority. Nevertheless the resounding sound of a chihuahua comes to mind when I see your thoughts interjected randomly thru out this thread. You may sit with the child molesters, gang members, drug dealers and other convicted criminals as you see fit to preach reform and compassion like a "what would jesus do" teach shirt. That will not change the fact that i'm sure most see you as a guy standing on a bucket preaching the end of the world or some new twisted interpretation of something once said by a wise man at a phish concert. My point is, stop trying to bury everyone in your thoughts. We get it, your right and everyone else is wrong. I suggest if you feel so strongly about the program you go make a donation to it and write your letter to the state. Good luck with that.

You're absolutely right - It looks like about 4 for and 8 against with a couple of posters in the middle. Thank you so much for pointing out that I am in the MINORITY!?!?! <GASP> - I will immediately take back every thing I said just so I can run with the sheep and bask in the warm glow of the fellowship of people who have the same (narrow and simplistic) belief.

We'll....now that's actually a lie and you've probably figured that out already. Even in circumstances where there is a clear majority, there is a great del of value in the dissenting opinion in terms of keeping the majority a little more honest in what are often very narrow and simplified rationalizations for screwing others. That unfortunately happens as the majority (in terms of public policy makers) often makes the false assumption that being the majority means it can totally ignore the needs and concerns of the minority. When that happens the outcome is ultimately poor for all involved.

But hey I get it, if someone has nothing else constructive to support his or her position in an argument, it is pretty tempting to just bring on the character attacks as a means to tell the person spouting the minority opinion that annoys you to STFU and go home. Hope it works out for you.

---------- Post Merged at 01:29 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 01:18 PM ----------

i like the idea of having them pay back for the training like a student loan...

its done all the time with law abiding citizens...

"free" education also comes at a price... in alot of countries that provide free higher level education you must give back to society by working for a local company for a specified period of time etc...

nothing is wrong with rehabilitation, but it comes at a cost and yes the rehabilitated person should at least cover some of that cost no?

Absolutely. I got my masters degree under a federal scholarship that essentially meant I worked 2 years in a specific position for each academic year completed. It was a great way to attract needed talent from the field and retain it in a specific position. The military has done the same thing for years, requiring a minimum period of enlistment or commission for certain training.

Now, on the other hand, sometimes college/training tuition support comes solely from a position of leveling the playing field. For example, if you are injured and are no longer able to work, a state and federal funded vocational rehabilitation program will provide training for you to return to an occupation consistent with your abilities, interests and limitations, and if that involved college, or skill training, they are not allowed to force you to take on student loan debt. The reasoning is pretty simple - if a student takes on large student loan debt, it will reduce the cash in their pocket when they do get out of school and go to work, and that creates a strong disincentive not to work, especially if they have SSI or SSDI as an alternate means of supports, and 2) if their wages are low, it makes it extremely difficult for the individual to support his or her self on their earnings.

The same reason applies to an inmate who wants to not re-offend. They after all have other skills that they could use to make money (theft, drugs, whatever) so the economy of having them re-pay a loan for the training is not all that economically viable if it reduces the recidivism rate when that costs 47K per year.

Now, it is true that the graduated working diver, may not work in CA and may not pay CA income tax, sales, tax, etc, but in that case he's also been released from CA custody and parole or probationary supervision to work out of state, so even if he re-offends it will be out of state and CA will save $47K a year either way. That's saving CA tax dollars either way.

Of course, to see any logic in the above examples requires enough empathy to look at a particular situation or program from someone else's shoes to see where it makes a critical difference for them, and only then step back and see how a better outcome might also benefit your interests.

 

[koozemani]

You're absolutely right - It looks like about 4 for and 8 against with a couple of posters in the middle. Thank you so much for pointing out that I am in the MINORITY!?!?! <GASP> - I will immediately take back every thing I said just so I can run with the sheep and bask in the warm glow of the fellowship of people who have the same (narrow and simplistic) belief.

We'll....now that's actually a lie and you've probably figured that out already. Even in circumstances where there is a clear majority, there is a great del of value in the dissenting opinion in terms of keeping the majority a little more honest in what are often very narrow and simplified rationalizations for screwing others. That unfortunately happens as the majority (in terms of public policy makers) often makes the false assumption that being the majority means it can totally ignore the needs and concerns of the minority. When that happens the outcome is ultimately poor for all involved.

But hey I get it, if someone has nothing else constructive to support his or her position in an argument, it is pretty tempting to just bring on the character attacks as a means to tell the person spouting the minority opinion that annoys you to STFU and go home. Hope it works out for you.

---------- Post Merged at 01:29 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 01:18 PM ----------

Absolutely. I got my masters degree under a federal scholarship that essentially meant I worked 2 years in a specific position for each academic year completed. It was a great way to attract needed talent from the field and retain it in a specific position. The military has done the same thing for years, requiring a minimum period of enlistment or commission for certain training.

Now, on the other hand, sometimes college/training tuition support comes solely from a position of leveling the playing field. For example, if you are injured and are no longer able to work, a state and federal funded vocational rehabilitation program will provide training for you to return to an occupation consistent with your abilities, interests and limitations, and if that involved college, or skill training, they are not allowed to force you to take on student loan debt. The reasoning is pretty simple - if a student takes on large student loan debt, it will reduce the cash in their pocket when they do get out of school and go to work, and that creates a strong disincentive not to work, especially if they have SSI or SSDI as an alternate means of supports, and 2) if their wages are low, it makes it extremely difficult for the individual to support his or her self on their earnings.

The same reason applies to an inmate who wants to not re-offend. They after all have other skills that they could use to make money (theft, drugs, whatever) so the economy of having them re-pay a loan for the training is not all that economically viable if it reduces the recidivism rate when that costs 47K per year.

Now, it is true that the graduated working diver, may not work in CA and may not pay CA income tax, sales, tax, etc, but in that case he's also been released from CA custody and parole or probationary supervision to work out of state, so even if he re-offends it will be out of state and CA will save $47K a year either way. That's saving CA tax dollars either way.

Of course, to see any logic in the above examples requires enough empathy to look at a particular situation or program from someone else's shoes to see where it makes a critical difference for them, and only then step back and see how a better outcome might also benefit your interests.

So, a criminal who costs the state hundreds of thousands of dollars, receives specialized job traing, but will probably never work in CA and contribute back to the state in the form of taxes. That's seagull like behavior. I wonder why CA doesn't want to pay for it. (sarcasm)

 

[Tigerman]

So, a criminal who costs the state hundreds of thousands of dollars, receives specialized job traing, but will probably never work in CA and contribute back to the state in the form of taxes. That's seagull like behavior. I wonder why CA doesn't want to pay for it. (sarcasm)

Yeah, its much better of course to get them back and pay $47k a year EVERY year than to pay 50k once to get them out of the system, even if they DO leave the state. I mean 50k once is much worse than 500k over a period of 10 years..

 

[Dr. Lecter]

False choice, Tigerman. Perhaps present prison conditions are too nice, present prison costs too high, and the types of behavior that are criminalized with sentences longer than a year are far too many.

 

[Zen Diving Inc.]

But hey I get it, if someone has nothing else constructive to support his or her position in an argument, it is pretty tempting to just bring on the character attacks as a means to tell the person spouting the minority opinion that annoys you to STFU and go home. Hope it works out for you.

Considering you merely interject when there is an opportunity to re-state your original opinion. I believe the statement above, clearly and eloquently describes your own behavior. Must have been subliminal. Thats great, and I supposedly am the one with issues because i don't see things your way. Cant blame you for trying LMAO. Please do continue, sorry for the interruption...

 

[Mitchell Teeters]

A friend of mine that worked as a guard a chino told me of a convict that was paroled, struck a guard so he could get back in the training, and complete it. Nothing like using the system is there?
I don't have a problem with them getting the training if they pay for it in the end. Make it a condition of the parole.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Superlyte27]

I call BS.
I work in three prisons. Striking a guard would eliminate you from ANY special activities. You can't even go to the GED class after hitting a guard.

 

[Zen Diving Inc.]

A friend of mine that worked as a guard a chino told me of a convict that was paroled, struck a guard so he could get back in the training, and complete it. Nothing like using the system is there?
I don't have a problem with them getting the training if they pay for it in the end. Make it a condition of the parole.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well thats confusing...How do you get paroled, then strike a guard. What did hit the guard on his way out the front door or did he come back as a visitor just to slap a guard? I'm not one to call BS since I don't know you or your friend and have no way to prove you wrong. I would however enjoy hearing that story in more detail.

 

[Mitchell Teeters]

My buddy was laughing when he told me. He said that the guy told the guard "nothing personal" and hit him as he was walking out the door. Call it BS if you want, just telling you what he told me. He was just relating something funny that happened.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk