Give Prisoners Guns to Protect Themselves

A man entered a Walmart with a gun on his hip. He wasn't the only one, many others were carrying theirs concealed. He bought his groceries, then went home. Safe, because he moved around in a relatively safe area. But there was always the risk of a threat to his person, one never knows, so he exercised his universal right to protect himself by carrying a weapon just in case something happens.

 He couldn't know if a potential attacker or robber may be muscular and able to overpower him, hence wearing a gun levels the playing field. It makes perfect sense, because as the saying goes, a lot can go wrong in the 10 minutes before the cops arrive. You're your own first responder. 

Gun lovers will point out there is nothing wrong with carrying a weapon in public, while others opposed to guns will claim in case of violence, other people would be able to assist and bring an attacker under control, especially when a country does not allow guns. No guns equal no shootings, and it takes far more guts to stab someone compared to shooting him. There are as many people resisting guns as there are that loves guns. Both makes valid points. 

As imaginary devil's advocate I decided to look at the other side of the fenced-in walls, just to make a valid observation that has its merits too. 

Prison inmates have human rights (not that I agree, but I'm being paid by my client Snowflake Inc. to say so), which if violated by a government can land its country in hot water internationally. These prisoners also have the right to protect themselves, and as we all know, the risk of  being attacked in a prison is magnitudes higher than in a Walmart. 

In the Walmart there was a bad, muscular, big guy, with a gun. He  later that day robbed a convenience store and shot the cashier, who didn't have a gun. Why did he not rob the Walmart? Simply because he knew if he pulled his gun, twenty-seven other - good - people would pull theirs on him. 

The same logic applies in prisons. Most criminals in there just want to do their time and go home. They are kind of the good guys that don't want to cause shit anymore. 

As such, and as overt proponent of scum removal, I propose that all inmates are issued with a firearm. Just a handgun, with just three bullets in the chamber, purely for self-defense. This logic should make sense to any gun-lover. Should one bad guy pulls his gun on another guy, 250 others will pull theirs on the bad guy. And inmates, even the extra-bad ones, have a surprising desire to stay alive. 

Of course many people will point out many cons for this proposal. What if the bunch of scum in there start shooting each other up like crazy? To this question there's a simple counter-question as answer: So what if they do? 

Incarcerating a criminal cost - depending on the country - thousands per month. Times that with 12 months, then with the 20 years sentence an inmate got, and you have enough money to build a school with. Multiply that with a hundred thousand criminals, or 2 million like the USA has, and there is an incredible lot of money going down the drain every day. Google the cost yourself, see where much of your taxes go to, you will be nauseated. 

Why is it a problem then when inmates kill each other? Every shot saves the taxpayer enough money for a new health clinic, a better school for his children, safer roads, cheaper electricity. Of course, we do have the stand-off position, like a Cold War, where nobody dares shooting one another out of fear for getting shot himself. Keep in mind, each inmate has 3 bullets only, not enough to go on a rampage. And those bullets are all he gets for his entire stay in jail. 

There will always be the bad guys in society, even in prison, for whom a prison sentence just means squat. With inmates taking such a liability permanently out of circulation, governments can still wash their hands in innocence on the world stage, as they simply only granted inmates their universal right to protect themselves. 

Critics with in-the-box thinking will point out the threat to prison wardens, a legitimate concern. Their lives will be worthless the moment even one inmate gets a gun. There's a simple, highly effective, proven solution. 

We know the current way of incarceration of criminals does not work. Recidivism - released criminals turning back to a life of crime - is very high. According to statistics 3 out of 4 (almost 75%, to be precise) released criminals commit crimes again within 5 years after release. 

That's because prison did not teach those criminals to take decisions and responsibility for themselves, it was done for them by wardens. As such, they have little to no self-discipline, because they had no control over basic decisions like when to wake up, how to make their own food, etc. They therefore almost always fail to adapt to the norms and rules of society when released again, and have to return to what they know: How to do wrong to others. 

We also know that corruption in prisons is rife, with many wardens accepting bribes and abusing their position of authority. That is not conductive for rehabilitation, and it only happens because wardens have all the control. 

That control should be relegated to inmates themselves. Wardens should be removed from the temptation of accepting bribes or abusing their authority, and saving their lives, by permitting no wardens inside the perimeter of a penitentiary. As such gun-carrying inmates cannot kill a warden that isn't in there to begin with.

 Let inmates rule themselves in the confinement of a building. Think hard about this, and keep in mind the human desire to stay alive. 

At the outside of a 'demilitarized zone' at the single gate of the institution, wardens will issue a new inmate with clothes and necessities, before he walks the 300 meters (so inmates cannot hit a warden with their handguns that far) to the prison itself to enter the gate there, all by himself. In there a committee, or some form of governance set up by inmates themselves, will await him.

 When inmates have the control inside, they are forced to learn the rules of society, to make their society work, to set up rules and abide by it, to take control of their own lives. New inmates will soon learn that the more skills they possess, the more time they had spent on education, the more valuable they are to any society, and the less the chance of being bullied in life. 

When you add value to the lives of others by what you can do, you earn respect, and gets remunerated in various forms. Otherwise, you are screwed. 

Food can be sent to the prison using a conveyor belt system, going from the single gate to the entrance of the building. No wardens allowed in, no inmates allowed out, except those due for release. Anyone entering the space in between the high outside fence and the building itself gets a bullet from warden-snipers, and the country gets a new school. 

The reader may think this isn't going to work, that criminals cannot rule themselves. As advocate, I would like to present a huge exhibit A as evidence, called Australia. This continent - yes, it's not an island - was a former outdoor prison for the British Empire, with criminals being banned there deemed too dangerous to be incarcerated at any of Britain's many other former colonies. Once in Australia they had to rule themselves, and they quickly figured out in order to survive they had to set up rules, and abide by it. It's an ironic twist of fate. 

The Aussies till this day is so thankful for that lesson that they still belong to the British Empire in some way, via the Commonwealth, and still drool over having a night of tantric sex with Queen Elizabeth. 

This system of giving criminals full control in a society created just for them works. Outside in the big world with its many rules and many unknown people they struggle, but inside a small society where everyone knows each other they strive. In some Mexican and Brazilian prisons, inmates follow this exact model of self-governance. And it works so well that many refuses to leave, seriously. While crime is rife outside those prisons, there's surprisingly little crime inside such prisons. 

Extending this model to all prisons will ensure a better, rehabilitated criminal is released after some years, one that is less likely to resort to crime again. The completely corrupted type will simply try to continue their shenanigans inside the prison with no wardens to stop them, but with the other 'good' inmates taking them out with a bullet. With each inmate having a gun the playing field is leveled, preventing barbaric cavemen from overpowering inmates with brains but with fewer muscles. After all, one needs people with brains to make a society works. 

How to prevent a riot from such prisons against the outside world, how to keep that society of criminals in check? Well, if a country behaves badly, the rest of the world don't want to do business with them, like sending them no food, no water, no medical supplies, and no free electricity anymore... 

I conclude my monologue by saying that inmates should get guns to protect themselves, and that they should be allowed to govern themselves inside prison walls, without any wardens in there. I mean, why not, what does  the outside world has to lose? It's no lost to a law-abiding outside world when some awful criminals get shot by their own 'law enforcement' in there.