http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060111/od_nm/...DRpBHNlYwM3NTc-

In this article, an Idaho lawmaker came up with an idea of having prison inmates sleep in shifts in order to help with prison overcrowding. It would basically mean that some inmates sleep in the day while other inmates sleep at night. This would allow prisons to hold more inmates with the same number of beds.

So the question for debate is,
Could this work to help ease up on prison overcrowding?

I don't think that would do much good - overcrowding isn't only about the number of beds. Furthermore, prolonged cycles of sleeping during day and being awake at night are not healthy for a person (a recent scientific study proves this), so it could be considered cruel and unsual punishment.

An easier solution, in my opinion, would be to release every non-violent drugoffender.

As a staunch Republican, many people on this board will be surprised, but I agree!

55% of all Federal Inmates were behind bars for drug related offenses, according to this site:Drug War Facts
The same site also shows that 21% of all state prisoners were drug law violators.

If you consider that the Manhattan Institute figures here that it costs about $25000 to keep an inmate in prison, how much would we save?

Consider that Drugwarfacts.org says that the United States incarcerated 2,212,475 persons at yearend 2003, who knows how much money we could save?!?!?!

HOw very liberal of you Aevens LOL - I agree- when you take into account overcrowding of prisons - don't think of the welfare of the prisoners- think of the welfare of the folks hired to watch them.

You are dealing with a basic safety issue for the employees watching those "bad guys"- prison overcrowding creates lapses in security and can harm the safety of the employee, and the community- you just can't keep track of way too many prisoners- watch your own back, and make sure every security precaution is in place at the same time- it just isn't humanely possible.

If we stopped the "war on sin" in this country- perhaps we could put more REAL bad guys behind bars!

Bad, bad idea for several reasons.

#1, it's already been pointed out that emptying the prisons of inmates serving drug-related sentences would be a better way of easing overcrowding.

#2, during volatile situations in prisons, one way of keeping control is to lock down a unit -- secure each inmate in his/her cell. If there is only one cell for two inmates, this would be difficult if not highly dangerous.

#3, during the flu epidemic of 1918, one of the most notorious means of contagion spreading was observed in boardinghouses that served shift workers such as factory, packing house, and similar industries. In order to collect three "rents" per day, the boardinghouse let each bed out three times. A lot of people got sick from this.

FYI- lockdown RARELY is one prisnor per cell- when you are talking about lock down in shifts in what is typically a 4 person cell, with about the geneva convention demands for POWs- so normally- not that big a deal- however- you put 12 men in a room during lockdown- and someone is going to die- no exageration- and it might very well not be a inmate- it very well might be a policeman, a visitor, gaurd or whatever- when lock down starts for an emergency you don't know WHO is going to be stuck in one area or another.

You really can't appreciate an "incident" in a lockdown facility until you are in one- very dangerous and very scary- most of the time it doesn't turn into a "riot" - it is one ward or another escalating and being locked down- before it goes critical and envelopes other wings and such.

Now- that is a place that is just at max capacity- no overcrowding.

I know most of society doesn't give a rat's fanny about the inmates- but why endanger the working stiffs that man the place?

Are they going to give the prison three times more staff? I doubt it- there are probably lot's of REALLY bad guys in there that want to get out- and if you don't give three times the staff- you will absolutely have escapees.

Anyone remember what happened when those 7 inmates in Texas broke out? Innocent folks died- that's what happened.

There is this tendency to think "the prisoners deserve it" - without thinking about the public safety in this situation.

Maybe but I like the idea used in some parts of the Southwest like AZ. Just put em in tents.

As far as releasing “non-violent” drug offenders I am not so sure. How do we know that a drug offender is “non-violent”? He may be in jail for drug possession buy what did he do to get the money to support his habit? I have read the average heroin addict coats society $400,000/year in theft. And IMO many are violent but have not been caught yet or been faced with a situation in a robbery or drug deal where violence will take place.

Non-violent drug dealers? As in someone who gets caught importing a ton of yayo while being fortunate enough to not have had to murder anyone for it? What drugs would be made excempt? I think the rule of thumb ought to be: If it takes more than one month and more than four deals to double your investment, it's legal. If it takes less than a month and/or two deals, it's illegal. Kidding.

So is it fair that we begin to assume that non-violent drugoffenders are violent, even though they haven't been convicted of violent crimes? What happend to innocent until proven guilty? Should we start assuming politicians that take bribes are also automatically involved in secret assasinations?

Of course, when I suggested we should release non-violent drugoffenders it was supposed to be implicit, that I wanted to decriminalize drugs. Keeping drugs illegal serves no credible goal - quite the opposite. It's a source for great income for organized crime, it makes people rob and steal to support their habit because of the elevated price of the drugs and it costs billions in lawenforcement, trials and incarcerations.

Maybe someone should do a study to show how many dollars each taxpayer invests in the war on drugs, compared to the costs of having legalized drugs. I think the taxpayer could save quite a lot of money.