Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

ChocolateReignRemix

Members
  • Content Count

    320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChocolateReignRemix

  1. There are cameras throughout and they will (at the minimum) be able to see who was in the area.
  2. Yes, but that isn't relevant regarding how he is being held on the new charges.
  3. You aren't under constant 24/7 surveillance, and comparing that to being on camera in public is just silly. And I never mentioned a right to privacy. Prisoners do have a right to (reasonable) personal dignity.
  4. Epstein had not yet been convicted. Also his alleged victims have the same right to justice as all victims, regardless of the notoriety of the accused. Being kept under 24/7 surveillance for reasons outside the usual protocol would correctly be challenged in court.
  5. It's not so much we "allow" as someone truly motivated can eventually find a way. As noted previously prisoners do have rights and you can't keep someone under 24/7 surveillance without good cause.
  6. There are people who can be treated. This was a person who did not want to spend his lifetime in prison. Comparing the two is illogical.
  7. It's reality. You can't place someone on 24/7 surveillance because of what they might do without a very good reason. Eventually they will have an opportunity and if they take it and are successful there isn't much that can be done.
  8. He wasn't yet convicted and still had rights. We can't (or shouldn't) put prisoners awaiting trial through psychological torture to stop the occasional suicide. If someone really wants to kill themselves they will eventually find a way.
  9. Likely some of the reason. I would also think asking someone to monitor 6 screens closely would be mind numbingly difficult.
  10. Really terrible idea on multiple levels. It's easy to say that about someone rich like Epstein but the average prisoner awaiting trial likely can't afford being charged for his own security. And we can't charge someone like Epstein only because he has a higher net worth.
  11. I don't think you realize how big some prisons are and how many people they house. And they generally don't have flush budgets. Your baby also isn't actively working to find a way to beat any monitoring system you install. Considering the rarity of escapes, I am not sure you can make an effective case for Three Stooges security.
  12. Think about what a suicide watch is. Constant surveillance all day and night. Lights on. No privacy at all. Nothing in a cell that can even possibly be used to harm yourself. It is dehumanizing and they have found too long under watch is also damaging. Not to mention it is staff intensive. The goal is to get someone out of immediate crisis, and by and large it usually works. In the end if someone really wants to kill themselves they will eventually find a way.
  13. The 6 days isn't surprising. I think the norm for being on a watch is 72 hours.
  14. Agree. My main point was that I believe the sources saying he was in a SHU as that would be expected roughly 2 weeks after the suicide attempt. Has this happened within in 48 hours I would be very skeptical.
  15. It would follow standard policy. Being on suicide watch is usually temporary. The prisoner is kept in a fairly bare cell under constant supervision. Usually the more restrictive conditions last only a few days (much longer without good reason and issues with cruel and unusual punishment will pop up). The suicide watch is also very expensive to maintain and affects staffing. The next phase is usually to put the prisoner in a SHU. Check ins are again about every 15-20 minutes. It is not common but also not unusual for someone to commit suicide in a SHU. My guess is we will find out whomever is in charge of psychology services and 1-2 others signed off on his transfer to a SHU. It's *possible* someone killed Epstein. It's more likely he committed suicide. Considering the rumors about him had existed for some time, my guess is anyone powerful enough to get to him in a federal prison would have done it long ago.
  16. I just have to ask - exactly how do you think the SAT is scored?
  17. The last number wasn't from 2008. The uptick began at that time. Currently 75+ in the workforce is around 10%. There is an expectation the % will grow as life expectancy increases, but it will always be the lowest.
  18. The uptick began in 2008. The increase in the 65-70 group was much higher than in the 70+. The 75+ had an increase but smaller than the others. Those working over 75 are still a distinct minority for many reasons.
  19. I am citing above the table (anything else would be a guess) but using the BLS standard of employed = 1+ hours of paid work.
  20. As of 2002 less than 5% of those age 75 or older were still working. The number has been growing and and jumped after the 2008 economic debacle and is somewhere around 8-10% now. I would call that relatively rare.
  21. It's also important to remember that education is a solution at the micro level, but has shrinking returns at the macro level. There are only so many openings for jobs with higher skill levels, and eventually someone has to do the unskilled work. A landscaping company isn't going to pay you more just because someone has an engineering degree (extreme example obviously).
  22. For starters, near full employment is a bit misleading. The unemployment rate is calculated in a consistent measure and for that reason is a solid measure of trends over time, but it doesn't account for underemployment. It should also be noted WalMart employs around 1.4 million people in the United States. Considering a fair number of those are in areas with limited employment opportunities, I am not sure where you think that many people can find employment elsewhere. Not to be trite, but as noted in "Caddyshack", the world needs ditch diggers too. Our labor market consists of X number of jobs that may be unskilled but still require a person willing to do them. As long as the number of those seeking work >>> number of available jobs, those on the unskilled side of the labor market will be on the low end of wages. As a society we then have to decide how we are going to treat the least of us. Personally I think whether someone is bagging my groceries, doing the landscaping in my neighborhood, or cleaning houses, anyone who is working full time should be able to afford to put a roof over their heads, food on the table, and live a decent life.
  23. So...if business margins cannot support the additional pay, and those who are working for $7.25 can't make ends meets, then who makes up the difference? Hint: it starts with tax and ends with payers via the social safety net (as limited as it may be.) So the question could also be posed as why should businesses be indirectly subsidized by the taxpayer? And let's nor pretend these are only small businesses being subsidized. WalMart and other major corporations benefit even more than the typical small business. WalMart has been known to even provide employees on how to apply for government assistance. If we are okay with subsidizing business, then fine. But that means the constant attacks on the social safety net need to be dropped as well.
  24. She also has a back story involving brain trauma and manipulation. I won't judge her yet as we are very early in her story arc.
×
×
  • Create New...