Since I’ve been duly elected to solve all of your problems, I’ve decided to tackle women’s prison today. Specifically, I have an idea for a major cost-savings program that frankly nobody in their right minds would ignore. Admittedly, it’ll sharpen some pitchforks, but hey, show me a good idea that hasn’t?
The What
Essentially, my idea is to have female inmates who are non-violent become eligible for domestic service probation under a work release program. This program and its participants will be called Babes On Domestic Service, or BONDS for short. Women who are currently being incarcerated for non-violent offenses and have shown good behavior while behind bars will be able to live with a sponsor. BONDS will be able to work a pre-approved list of jobs outside of the home, providing her sponsor also agrees and is willing to provide transportation and wardrobe. The BONDS wages will be the property of the sponsor, thanks to the 13th amendment’s notable exception.
The intake system would be similar to that of the WIFE program. The inmate would have a battery of health test done; bloodwork, STD panel, measurements, physical, et cetera. Then, she’ll be stripped naked and have her nudes uploaded to the site, where pre-qualified sponsors can peruse at their leisure. Then a sponsor can put in a claim request for her, if he is interested and she is still available.
In order to qualify as a sponsor. The sponsor-candidate would be a US citizen, 18 or older, and be a net-contributor to society who can prove through income or assets to be able to financially support a dependent adult. You read that word right; dependent. As in the sponsor would be eligible to claim the BONDS that he’s housing on his tax returns. After all, she must be fed adequately, and her presence would drive up water usage and would need other hygienic supplies.
During this time, the sponsor would have full power of attorney and healthcare proxy of the inmate for the duration of her sentence. Healthcare proxy is crucial because this would serve as a major cost-saving to the state by no longer needing to provide expensive medical care to the inmate. Hence the need for financial verification of sponsors.
A sponsor must keep the inmate in his home for a minimum of one year, barring the inmate becoming violent or disobedient. However, the sponsor is welcome to hold onto the inmate for as long as he wishes, up to the end of her sentence. On the flipside, the sponsor is also free to trade the inmate in back to the prison for another one. The only cost of this churn would be the minimum one-year holding requirement for each traded BONDS
Of course, the sponsor would have to agree to a probation officer coming to the home to confirm the presence of the inmate on a regular and/or random basis. Mostly this is for attendance keeping purposes. After all, the state would need to trust-but-verify that the inmate is being kept within the confines of the sponsor’s home. Let’s not forget that she is still being punished for a crime and sure as hell doesn’t deserve Disney.
“But Dan, why is that necessary when ankle-monitors exist?” The purpose of the probation officer visit would also double as a wellness check for the sponsor. After all, the sponsor is taking a risk by introducing this criminal into his home. A bad report from the sponsor to the probation officer would result in the inmate being sent back to the prison. Let’s standardize protecting the taxpayers from criminals.
The best part of this program? We could implement this tomorrow if we truly wanted to. After all, the BONDS program does not call for any new technology to be invented, infrastructure to be built, or employees to be hired. Thus, the only barrier to entry is a social one, but we’ll get to that later.
The Why.
This program stands to save various states, and possibly even the federal government, boatloads of cash. Why? Because it costs nearly $40k per year to keep an inmate locked up. Under this work-release domestic service system, these liabilities (because that’s what inmates are: literal financial liabilities) would be removed off of the state’s ledgers.
The sponsor would also be limited to one inmate at a time. Why? In case you haven’t noticed; most young men are single. Hence, this program would be a tangible way to improve the lives of a demographic that many in the government claim are struggling. This is similar in concept to the WIFE program; dangle captive pussy in front of men and watch them start learning skills, getting sober, building careers, accumulating wealth, and ultimately starting families. Pussy is one hell of a motivator.
Why would the women sign up for this program? Well assuming that their consent is even needed at all (hint: it isn’t), there’s a strong incentive. The living conditions offered at a sponsor’s home is likely to be lightyears better than what she’s currently experiencing at the correctional facility. Thus, the ladies-in-orange would jump at the chance to become a rich man’s plaything assistant.
There’s another reason why inmates would virtually line up to participate in the program; the end of their sentences. Being matched with a sponsor naturally presents a segue into life after prison. After all, it’s not like she’d be starting over without a safety net as many ex-inmates do. Unless the home situation was downright toxic, chances are the borderline-penniless former-inmate will stay with her sponsor for the foreseeable future upon release. Having a softer landing spot to begin post-prison life would certainly help curtail the recidivism rate. Wil feminists complain that this would merely continue a supposedly-unhealthy relationship dynamic? Yes. Will said feminists actually present a realistically workable alternative? Fuck no. Wanna know how I know that? It’s because they’ve had decades to bring a new idea to the table and implement it, and they haven’t.
Contingencies
“But Dan” Karen shrieks “what about the well-being of the woman in this scenario?” To that I reply; what about the well-being of the woman in this scenario? In case you forgot Karen, she’s currently a convicted criminal who is serving a punishment. Let’s be honest, most of America can be shockingly indifferent to the suffering of inmates, up to and including sexual assault. So drop the act, Karen; you never gave a shit about this topic before, so don’t magically start caring about inmate’s well-being now.
But to engage Karen’s point in good faith, we need to have some contingencies in the event of an overtly abusive sponsor (if they even exist?). The BONDS are free to report any physical or sexual violence perpetrated by the sponsor during a probation officer check-in. Upon doing so, she would be removed from the sponsor’s home and sent back to prison as an overloaded case worker at the correctional facility investigates these claims. If a sponsor is found to have not committed any wrongdoing within 10 business days, then the inmate will have her sentence lengthened for filing a false report and/or be ineligible for any future placements through this program. After all, misuse of the system by the inmates needs to be punished…
Of course, accidents do occasionally happen, and inevitably some female inmates will wind up carrying their sponsor’s baby. In such an event, custody by default would be awarded to the sponsor and not the inmate. Inmate-mothers losing custody is already a standard practice, thus nothing would change. Just because she slept in a more comfortable bed doesn’t change the fact that she’s serving a sentence. By virtue of finances and not currently being incarcerated, the sponsor is clearly the better choice for giving the child a decent life than the inmate.
This assumes that the sponsor would even want the baby born to begin with. As per the order of a healthcare proxy, the sponsor would hold the final say in whether the pregnant inmate would carry the fetus to term. With that decision-making power comes a cost; a financial one. The sponsor is fully on the hook for paying for the procedure and any/all aftercare the BONDS might allegedly need.
Haters
Naturally, many Liberals will oppose this trend (see above; feminists). As always, we’ll need our beloved longtime friend of the blog Savvy PR Man to enter the chat. His first order of business will be to conjure up attack ads against those who oppose BONDS. What angle will he use? Simple; the fact that the anti-BONDS paid protestors advocates are opposing an actionable prison reform idea. The modern Left claims to be the party of prison reform, riiiiiiiiiight? Also as mentioned above, the BONDS program would stand a good chance at lowering recidivism, which is a stated goal of many from the blue brigade. Savvy PR Man will point out that inmates most likely to re-enter incarceration are Black and Brown, thus making opposing BONDS for the modern Liberal optically-poor. And the Left hates nothing more than poor optics, especially on the topic of race relations. To drive the nail in the coffin once and for all, a mention of how this will empty prisons of non-violent offenders will be a slam dunk to stymie Liberal opposition.
A different approach will be needed to convince Conservatives to back the fuck off. However, Savvy PR Man is certainly up for the task. Conservatives will inevitably cite some cherry-picked bible verse that supports their initial anti-BONDS resistance. However, Savvy PR Man will clap back by pointing out the colossal cost savings of the program. He’ll further rub it in that the right-wingers are allegedly the party of fiscal watchdogs; they still are, riiiiiiiiiight? Our friend Savvy PR Man can further drive this home by pointing out that sponsors are free to spend their personal funds as they wish, and opposing BONDS is antithetical to that. So much for the party of small government and free markets, amirite? A fail-safe for Savvy PR Man is old-fashioned partisanship; the Liberals oppose this program, and you aren’t a Liberal…are you??
Lastly, there will be an absolute Goliath standing in the way of BONDS; the private prison industrial complex. Make no mistake, it absolutely is an industrial complex, and this program threatens their bottom line since they need to run at-capacity in order to profit. One will not even need to be Savvy PR Man to point out the obvious conflict of interest. The term conflict of interest looks very fucking bad on a firm looking to secure future government contracts, now doesn’t it?
What part of except as punishment for crime did you not understand?
Home Page 