As if the prison system wasn't inhumane enough. This is just cruel.
https://m.mic.com/articles/142779/the-end-of-prison-visitation#.ytjd0Se6x
Quote
The End of Prison Visitation
By Jack Smith IV 20 hours ago
SHARETWEETTEXTSHARE
A new system called "video visitation" is replacing in-person jail visits with glitchy, expensive Skype-like video calls. It's inhumane, dystopian and actually increases in-prison violence — but god, it makes money.
Losing connection
The only way Lauren Johnson could see Ashika Renae Coleman at the Travis County Correctional Complex in Del Valle, Texas, was via video conference from seven miles away in Austin.
Coleman and Johnson had met in 2012 in a rehabilitation program that tries to build trust and community among incarcerated women through theater. Both had been to prison for drug-related offenses.
Johnson got out in 2011. She became an activist helping former convicts like herself re-enter society. Coleman had similarly altruistic ambitions when she was released, and planned to create a sober house for the formerly incarcerated. But after returning to a husband still suffering from addiction, she relapsed and ended up back in Travis County jail on another drug-possession charge.
Johnson logged into the Securus Technologies website — a Skype-like communication system used by the Travis County jail — on her PC laptop. But the video player didn't have the latest version of Java. When Johnson installed it, the system insisted she had not. So Johnson tried another laptop — a MacBook this time. Java was working this time, Flash was not.
Thinking the browser might be the problem, Johnson tried launching the video player in Chrome, then switched to Safari before giving up and using the Securus Android app on her phone.
Finally, Coleman's face appeared on screen — barely. For the entire call, a glitch in the system caused Coleman's image to look like a tangle of window blinds. Johnson wanted to talk to Coleman about her case, but through most of the call, she simply repeated, "Hello — can you hear me now?" Johnson was charged $10 for the video visit, even after cutting it a few minutes short of the 20-minute maximum.
All the while, Coleman waited alone in jail at a computer terminal. She had no other option. To see anyone but a prison guard, the only way was through a video feed.
Travis County ended all in-person visitations in May 2013, leaving video visitation as the exclusive method for people on the outside to communicate with the incarcerated. But Travis County is only on the leading edge of a new technological trend that threatens to abolish in-person visitation across the country. Over 600 prisons in 46 states have some sort of video visitation system, and every year, more of those facilities do away with in-person visitation.
Anticipating the arrival of friends and family, making eye contact, holding a child's hand — these are the experiences and memories that give someone the resilience they need to make it in prison. A visit can alleviate the suffering that comes cold confinement and the brutality of unpredictable violence that erupts between inmates.
Once people leave prison and return to society, their ability to thrive depends on the support network they left behind when they were incarcerated. In-person visits keep those relationships alive in a way that speaking through a flickering monitor does not.
"It's just too much frustration to come down here, wait for an hour and then only get 25 minutes for a not-so-good call," Coleman said when the connection improved for a moment. "I think the hassle is why people don't visit me as much anymore."
Extorting inmates' families is big business
You may have heard of the prison industrial complex, but the companies that provide corrections facilities with their communications technologies are an industrial complex all their own. Three companies dominate the prison comms business: Securus, Telmate and Global Tel Link, also called GTL — the Verizon, AT&T and Sprint of jails.
Long before video visitation existed, prison phone calls were the bread and butter of these companies. With exclusive contracts protecting them from competition, the trio of prison telecom giants ratcheted up the prices until a single phone call could cost upward of $14 a minute.
For the families of the 2.3 million incarcerated Americans nationwide, crippling costs are part and parcel of supporting a loved one in jail. A sweeping survey of families by the Ella Baker Center showed that more than 1 in 3 families goes into debt just to cover the costs of keeping in touch with their loved one. Of everyone pouring money into those systems, 87% are women.
These fees are the linchpin in an elaborate racket between telecommunications providers, prisons and local governments. The business model for the three major prison telecoms is built around long-term contracts that establish them as the sole provider in a given county or state. In order to win these contracts, the major companies promise each county or state "site commissions" — a euphemism for kickbacks. These deals are lucrative: In Los Angeles County, for example, it brings in a baseline, contractual guarantee of $15 million a year. In some counties, this money trickles back down to the prisons.
After decades of abuse, the Federal Communications Commission voted in October to cap phone rates at 11 cents per minute. GTL and Securus filed suit against the FCC. The telecoms argue the FCC has overstepped its legal authority in imposing the rate cap and that the lost revenue will leave the companies unable to fulfill their contractual obligation to pay the counties. The regulations are on hold while the FCC fights for the price caps to take hold.
If the FCC stops the telecoms from gouging families for phone fees, the next frontier is, well, any other service those companies provide. One of those lucrative new products is prison email, in which families are charged for digital "stamps." The other is video visitation.
The FCC is already looking to regulate other kinds of communication, but it could be months, even years, before it gets around to addressing digital communication. So while the FCC lumbers toward capping phone costs, the prison telecoms can get the same money from innocent families using systems the FCC hasn't gotten around to regulating yet.
"This is a fertile ground for abuse, since the FCC is taking modes of communications one by one, rather than [with] comprehensive, all-at-once policy," Aleks Kajstura, legal director of the Prison Policy Institute, told Mic.
Prisons have their own incentive. Officials across the country, including Brandon Wood of the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, argue that visitation is a privilege and not a right — and that visitations are a security risk.
But the true incentive is keeping costs low. Video visitation requires fewer full-time prison staff members, so if the private contractors are willing to run the visitation system themselves, it's a pretty sweet deal for counties. Especially when those contractors are paying their way in.
The case for visitation
Jorge Renaud is notorious to prison officials in Texas as a troublemaker — not for his three convictions for burglary and robbery, but as a writer and editor of the Echo, Texas' newspaper by and for the incarcerated. During his 27 years in prison, he wrote about everything from gang wars and AIDS to incarcerated mothers and neglectful guards — anti-establishment writing that embarrassed prison officials.
At the time, he took the prison administration to task for preventing some inmates from having physical contact with visitors, forcing them to see their loved ones through a glass panel instead. He studied philosophers like Immanuel Kant and Michel de Montaigne, reading "the Chicano poets" and writing a 2002 book on navigating prison, Behind the Walls: A Guide for Families and Friends of Texas Prison Inmates.
During Renaud's time behind bars, visits from his wife and daughter served as a lifeline while awaiting parole, which finally came in 2008.
"The incredible anticipation and fulfillment of knowing they care enough to come can be the difference between you comporting with the rules, and being more human and aware and knowing the consequences of your actions and being willing to moderate and understand them," he said.
In 2014, Renaud was arrested for drinking and driving, and because he had violated the conditions of his parole, he ended up in jail once more — perhaps briefly, perhaps for the rest of his life.
But this time, no one could visit him. During the time Renaud was free, Travis County had quietly stopped in-person visitation, replacing it with Securus Technologies' video visitation system. His then-girlfriend Jaynna Sims was managing his affairs on the outside, but he could never meet with her, never look her in the eye, never hold her hand.
There were two options for Renaud and Sims to see each other: Sims could come down to the jail twice a week for a 20-minute video session for free. Or she could stay at home, risk it on her own computer and pay $10 for 20 minutes. Paid video visits were, of course, unlimited.
Sims said she racked up hundreds of dollars in fees a month, and when connection would cut out, she'd call up Securus' customer service to complain. It rarely helped; one time, customer service just hung up on her. (We reached out to both Securus and representatives of Securus-owned companies for comment on this story. Securus never responded.)
Anyone with a smartphone knows the road rage-like frustration of trying to speak through a bad connection. Imagine struggling through an expensive conversation in the midst of a crisis, like an accident or medical emergency; imagine being unable to reach the only people providing you a little bit of normalcy.
"There's an incredible despair and anger at this system, this fucking screen in front of you that wavers in and out," Renaud said.
Renaud spent three months in jail before he pled guilty to a diminished charge of reckless driving. Once he got out, Renaud got in touch with Bob Libal at Austin's Grassroots Leadership, a leading network of advocates in the fight against prison profiteering. He recounted to Libal his outrage at the profiteering and exploitation — the hopelessness of fighting with faulty technology in order to reach the people he needed most.
So Libal told Renaud, the notorious prison scribe, to put pen to paper again, and in a few short months, Renaud churned out the earliest damning report of the effects of video visitation systems on jail populations to marshal the local advocates and legislators to restore in-person visitation to Travis County.
County officials across the country claim video visitation is good for security. When Renaud got ahold of prison records, they showed that incidences of inmate-on-inmate violence, disciplinary infractions and possession of contraband all rose after Travis County did away with in-person visitation. Because visitation is so new, these statistics are the earliest indication that the pro-security pitch for video visitation is all snake oil.
But perhaps the strongest case for visitation is that it keeps people out of jail. Prison recidivism goes way down for those who keep up strong family and community ties throughout their incarcerations.
The past decade in research shows consistently that maintaining the relationships the incarcerated will inevitably return to for support once they're released is a powerful agent in keeping them from repeat offenses. One study of over 16,000 incarcerated people found that any visitation at all, even just once, reduced the risk of recidivism by 13% for felony reconvictions.
After the report came out in October 2014, Renaud and Libal pushed for legislation that would make sure every jail in Texas kept some sort of in-person visitation. Working with Dallas Rep. Eric Johnson, they drafted HB 549, a bill establishing an inmate's right to a bare minimum of two 20-minute visitations per week. Only two months later, the law was introduced in the Texas House of Representatives.
Texas justice
When Sarah Eckhardt walked out of a Travis County commissioners' hearing in October 2012, she was grateful that video visitation was on its way to Travis County. A vote was called to decide whether to introduce video visitation to the Travis County Correctional Complex. Eckhart, a county commissioner at the time, thought that if only she'd had video visitation when her nephew was incarcerated in California, she'd be able to visit him any time from Texas.
During the meeting, Travis County Judge Sam Biscoe asked Darren Long, the major of corrections who led the charge to bring video visitation to the jail, if video would serve as a supplement or a substitute to in-person visitation. Long assured there would be no change in policy. The commissioners court voted in favor of the proposal, at ease that in-person visitation was there to stay.
Two years later, in 2014, Eckhardt got a call from Grassroots Leadership's Libal, who told her Travis County had switched over to video visitation entirely. She told him he most certainly was mistaken.
"Go look at the website," Libal said.
She navigated to the prison's visitation policy, which said that the only way to visit someone in jail was through video conference. The prison had done away with in-person visitation a year prior, and had just finalized a new contract with Securus that wasn't up for negotiation until 2015.
She called Long, reminding him he had promised there'd be no change in policy. "Darren, you said nothing was going to change," Eckhardt recalled saying. "He said, 'Well that's true, nothing did change — we'd already made that policy determination.'" In other words, when commissioners had asked for assurance that in-person visitation would remain, Long omitted the key fact that prison officials had already settled on getting rid of in-person visitation.
A native Texan whose father served as a U.S. congressman for 14 years, Eckhardt had just won a landslide election to take on Biscoe's soon-to-be vacant seat, becoming the first woman to serve as Travis County judge.
"I put it on my agenda that if [in-person visitation] wasn't reinstated while it was off the dais, I would make sure it was reinstated once I was back on," she said in her Austin office.
Eckhardt found an ally in Sally Hernandez, a Travis County constable running for sheriff. At the forefront of Hernandez's political platform was progressive reform to the sheriff's office, with the restoration of in-person visitation as a key issue.
"Just doing only video visitations, to me, is inhumane," Hernandez said. "If you're talking about a plea bargain, or you haven't seen your child, it has an emotional impact. It doesn't help an inmate make wise decisions, or have contact and the support of their family."
Hernandez won the Democratic primary in March, pledging to work with Eckhardt to protect the right to in-person visitation. In Austin's electoral history, the Democratic nominee is the typical shoo-in, so it's likely that come next year, Hernandez will be sheriff of Travis County.
The power and politics to govern these contracts will be in the hands of a county judge and, soon, a sheriff who believe in-person visitation is vital.
The gathering storm
HB 549 passed in the Texas House and Senate in May 2015. When Gov. Greg Abbott failed to sign or veto the law within the 20-day window set forth in the Texas Constitution, it became law by default, ensuring that people in hundreds of county jails across the state would be entitled to two, live in-person visitations a week.
But Travis County wasn't going to get in-person visitation back.
At least 22 of Texas' 254 counties fought and won an exemption to the new rules, claiming that they'd already dedicated significant resources to going full-video. Under the exemption, any county that had "incurred significant design, engineering or construction costs" in switching to video-only visitation by Sept. 1 didn't have to keep in-person visitation. But one thing advocates for in-person visitation had failed to do was narrowly define what "significant cost" meant.
This gave counties months to incur costs that could help an exemption. In San Antonio, for example, the county committed $6 million to a new video visitation center despite the protestations of families and activists, and won an exemption. Without a clear definition, any county that spent more than nothing was able to make a case for an exemption.
Travis County was headed for the same fate as San Antonio, until Judge Sarah Eckhardt was tipped off to a caveat. Travis County hadn't incurred any significant costs at all for setting up video visitation. All of the systems had been paid for by Securus Technologies.
On April 19, in-person visitation was restored to Travis County.
HB 549 established an incarcerated person's right to in-person visits in Texas' county jails — at least for now.
But Doug Smith, a policy analyst with the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, is worried that upcoming hearings in the state senate could still jeopardize the bill in the future.
"They'll have a hearing, people will be called to the Capitol and given the opportunity to testify, and the committee would issue recommendations based on what they've heard," Smith said over the phone. "Right now, most counties are safe, but I take nothing for granted."
Other states have begun their battle. In California, where 11 counties have either exclusively switched over to video visitation or are well on the way, state senators have begun work on SB 1157, a bill that would prevent county jails and private institutions from doing away with in-person visits.
But this is the beginning of a tech-driven shift in the way the prison telecoms do business, and none of the other 40 states that have introduced some kind of video visitation has anything as comprehensive as Texas' bill. Securus already has its hands in 3,400 corrections facilities in 48 states, and is constantly renegotiating its contracts.
But Jaynna Sims, who'd supported Jorge Renaud while he was hidden for three months behind video visitation, still knows the trauma inflicted by a system she says "never gives you a break," even with the battle behind her.
"People get out eventually, and they're coming back into the community," Sims said. "If we want to make life as miserable as possible and make sure they don't have growth or healing in jail, we can keep doing what we're doing. But if we don't want them to be worse off when they come back, we have to care about how we treat them in prisons and jails."
That trauma is felt anywhere families are trying to rehabilitate their loved ones — not reaching for hands through prison bars, but with faint voices through fading bars of failing reception, struggling to hold on to the connection.
"The opportunity to sit face to face and just have a personal connection is the one reprieve you get in all of this," Sims said. "But once you take away in-person visitation, you don't have that. It's like the system keeps finding ways to victimize people. And how can that, in any way, heal an individual, or a community?"
Coleman, who Johnson only saw through a glitchy screen, took a deal for two years in prison. She hasn't been assigned to a facility yet, but Johnson promised Coleman she'd drive to visit, either an hour and a half away at Linda Woodman State Jail, or three hours to Lucile Plane in Dayton, Ohio. Both facilities, for now, still have in-person visitation.
Ohhhh, Billy....
...don't be a hero, don't be a fool with your life.
(https://m.popkey.co/5ceb7a/LqgE8.gif)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 06, 2016, 10:39:01 AM
...don't be a hero, don't be a fool with your life.
Not as good as my reference, so a "C+".
Tim's outrage and sentiment is correct.
Unless we come up with a better method of correction/rehabilitation/punishment...prisons are necessary. But the growing "prison industrial complex" concept must be purged with fire.
Indeed. Prisons are a necessary evil, not a fucking profit engine.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 06, 2016, 09:41:24 PM
But the growing "prison industrial complex" concept must be purged with fire.
Sorry, man...we are in an era of such political hostility towards government and governmet-funded services not seen in 100 years. From the Postal Service, to NASA, to charter schools, it's all about steering everything away from tax-funded servives and towards privatization.
Also, stop imprisoning people for victimless crimes like small quantity drug possession.
Quote from: Monoriu on May 06, 2016, 10:33:48 PM
Also, stop imprisoning people for victimless crimes like small quantity drug possession.
And overdue library books.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 06, 2016, 09:41:24 PM
Tim's outrage and sentiment is correct.
Unless we come up with a better method of correction/rehabilitation/punishment...prisons are necessary. But the growing "prison industrial complex" concept must be purged with fire.
Unless your produce a smoking gun of quid pro quos from for profits to sentencing judges, all that is is a conspiracy theory. One judge got busted; that's not a trend.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2016, 01:11:39 AM
Unless your produce a smoking gun of quid pro quos from for profits to sentencing judges, all that is is a conspiracy theory. One judge got busted; that's not a trend.
Why would sentencing judges be the only ones that can make a profit from the prison-industrial complex? Service providers like that cited in the OP can obviously also profit, regardless of why judges send or don't send people to prison.
Quote from: Zanza on May 07, 2016, 01:37:03 AM
Why would sentencing judges be the only ones that can make a profit from the prison-industrial complex? Service providers like that cited in the OP can obviously also profit, regardless of why judges send or don't send people to prison.
Sure. But "prison-industrial complex" implies a system that can impact conviction. Some company that charges for video-conferencing isn't doing that, unless they're getting to judges (or juries).
Does it imply that? To me it just implied that prisons are run for profit, not that judges are in on the deal.
Quote from: Zanza on May 07, 2016, 02:19:10 AM
Does it imply that? To me it just implied that prisons are run for profit, not that judges are in on the deal.
If you don't accept my premise, how does Tonto's statement make any sense? Why do for profit prisons and ancillaries have to be purged with fire? Because profit is inherently evil?
No, profits are not inherently evil. But I don't consider prisons an aspect of society that should be governed by the laws of the market and targeted at profits.
I think prisons, like law enforcement for example, should be operated by the state and the target of the prison system should be security of society-at-large and rehabilitation of the inmates, not making a profit. Like all state activities, there should be cost control, but the guiding principles for decisions should be what's best for the two aforementioned targets, not how to make a profit with prisons.
So you are assuming that a for profit prison system delivers that social good less well than a publicly operated prison?
Does this kind of crap actually save the government money?
It seems Privatisation usually tends to cost the same or more....
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2016, 02:39:47 AM
So you are assuming that a for profit prison system delivers that social good less well than a publicly operated prison?
Yes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2016, 02:39:47 AM
So you are assuming that a for profit prison system delivers that social good less well than a publicly operated prison?
When states ship their inmates out of state to for-profit prisons (as Alaska does, for example), yes. When prisons (even public ones) cut off in-person visitation, because it's cheaper to contract a cheap Skype rip-off with crappy laptops, yes.
And even if for-profit prisons are cheaper, I believe in a principle that some things that government/society provide should be in the hands of commercial/market entities. Institutions where you are depriving people of their freedom (even if justifiably) are perhaps the prime example of that principle. Police as well, or any segment of the criminal justice system.
The discussion in Sweden has been a lot about healthcare (since we have a number of for-profit healthcare providers but not for-profit prisons). To the Left, which claims to be against profit in healthcare, the important distinction appears to be if the work is done by males or by females. Female-dominated fields like nursing etc should, according to the Left, never be done for profit. For male-dominated fields like providing and servicing technical equipment, or building the hospital buildings, profits are OK (and are considered natural). My impression is that this is just about the traditional sexism of the Left.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2016, 03:17:49 AM
Quote from: Zanza on May 07, 2016, 02:49:38 AM
Yes.
On faith, or on evidence?
On faith. I don't see how a for-profit incentive would lead to better allocation of resources when it comes to prisons.
That said, imprisoning people is perhaps the most invasive state power there is (short of capital punishment, but that doesn't exist here). We as a society need to deprive some of our fellow humans of their liberty, but we should do it in the most dignified way and that does not include making a profit of their depriviation of liberty.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2016, 02:23:55 AM
Quote from: Zanza on May 07, 2016, 02:19:10 AM
Does it imply that? To me it just implied that prisons are run for profit, not that judges are in on the deal.
If you don't accept my premise, how does Tonto's statement make any sense? Why do for profit prisons and ancillaries have to be purged with fire? Because profit is inherently evil?
No, it is because the profit motive is not compatible with running a state function that involves the necessary and systemic violation of otherwise basic human rights.
Putting people in prison is a necessary evil of our society - there is no reasonable way to do it in a manner that allows people to make a lot of money off of it while maintaining a respect for basic human dignity, as these kinds of cases, and many more like them, make clear.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2016, 03:17:49 AM
Quote from: Zanza on May 07, 2016, 02:49:38 AM
Yes.
On faith, or on evidence?
What is interesting here is Yi's faith that the profit motive, in any and all cases, *must* be the proper choice.
What is interesting about that is that even a cursory understanding of free markets, which underpins any discussion of profit motive, would make it clear that the prison industry, by definition, cannot be operating as any kind of free market.
The idea that someone would support a exclusive business contracted with the state to provide monopoly services to a completely captive population without any kind of market price controls at all based on trotting out the mantra of the purity and fundamental awesomeness of the profit motive is a rather fine example of just how ridiculous the religion of money has become.
If Yi really had any kind of actual commitment to a free market, he should be horrified at the idea of this kind of thing - he should be demanding that for-profit prison service providers should operate in a system where the consumers of their products have a choice of providers in order to create actual free market price and service pressures.
FEEL THE BERK
Shush you. This has nothing to do with socialism.
If you are going to champion free market capitalism, doing so in the realm of literally captive consumers with state mandated monopoly service providers is pretty astonishing.
Not that astonishing. See 19th and first half of the 20th century.
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2016, 10:49:16 AM
Shush you. This has nothing to do with socialism.
If you are going to champion free market capitalism, doing so in the realm of literally captive consumers with state mandated monopoly service providers is pretty astonishing.
No, but it is refreshing to see more people finally start openly challenging the hypocrisy, venality and manufactured artificiality of the alleged "free" market.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2016, 11:46:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2016, 10:49:16 AM
Shush you. This has nothing to do with socialism.
If you are going to champion free market capitalism, doing so in the realm of literally captive consumers with state mandated monopoly service providers is pretty astonishing.
No, but it is refreshing to see more people finally start openly challenging the hypocrisy, venality and manufactured artificiality of the alleged "free" market.
That comment makes no sense. What is wrong here is that they are applying a free market mechanism to an area where it is not applicable - I fully agree with Berkut's earlier posts. That does not mean there is something wrong with free market per se.
Quote from: Martinus on May 07, 2016, 11:49:01 AM
That comment makes no sense. What is wrong here is that they are applying a free market mechanism to an area where it is not applicable - I fully agree with Berkut's earlier posts. That does not mean there is something wrong with free market per se.
Neither does the term "openly challenging", either. We
can question an ideal, concept or principle without actually
completely denouncing said ideal, concept or principle. Kinda tough for you either/or types, I know.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2016, 11:57:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 07, 2016, 11:49:01 AM
That comment makes no sense. What is wrong here is that they are applying a free market mechanism to an area where it is not applicable - I fully agree with Berkut's earlier posts. That does not mean there is something wrong with free market per se.
Neither does the term "openly challenging", either. We can question an ideal, concept or principle without actually completely denouncing said ideal, concept or principle. Kinda tough for you either/or types, I know.
:lol:
The expression "openly challenging the hypocrisy, venality and manufactured artificiality of the alleged "free" market" hardly sounds like you are objectively considering pros and cons.
No, I don't suppose we can question the broken elements of a system that's been warped to such a degree it's no longer recognizable. Oh, well.
Another unintended side effect of the privatization of prisons (and other associated services, such as juvenile detention centers, inmigration detention centers, probation services, etc) in the US, besides its moral objections, is that it has created a multi billion industry that has been lobbying politicians since the 80s through organizations like ALEC for the implementation of harsher penalties like mandatory minimum sentences, three strikes laws, or "truth in sentencing" measures, which all increase incarceration. These companies have all the incentive in the world to prevent as much as possible any softening in the penal codes of the US, and thus meddle in an area essential for governance, which is the fairness of justice. And that's not taking into account all the financial support they can give through donations to politicians or other elected officers (sheriffs, judges, etc.) that want to be "tough on crime", as this also benefits them.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 07, 2016, 03:20:05 AM
When states ship their inmates out of state to for-profit prisons (as Alaska does, for example), yes. When prisons (even public ones) cut off in-person visitation, because it's cheaper to contract a cheap Skype rip-off with crappy laptops, yes.
And even if for-profit prisons are cheaper, I believe in a principle that some things that government/society provide should be in the hands of commercial/market entities. Institutions where you are depriving people of their freedom (even if justifiably) are perhaps the prime example of that principle. Police as well, or any segment of the criminal justice system.
Prison Inc. doesn't decide where those Alaskan prisoners go, the state does. DC has been sending prisoners to publicly operated prisons in Maryland and Virginia for as long as I can remember. That has nothing to do with the status of the prison.
The second part of the post is just a repetition of the assertion.
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2016, 08:33:28 AM
What is interesting here is Yi's faith that the profit motive, in any and all cases, *must* be the proper choice.
Incredibly interesting. You just made this up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2016, 01:29:21 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 07, 2016, 03:20:05 AM
When states ship their inmates out of state to for-profit prisons (as Alaska does, for example), yes. When prisons (even public ones) cut off in-person visitation, because it's cheaper to contract a cheap Skype rip-off with crappy laptops, yes.
And even if for-profit prisons are cheaper, I believe in a principle that some things that government/society provide should be in the hands of commercial/market entities. Institutions where you are depriving people of their freedom (even if justifiably) are perhaps the prime example of that principle. Police as well, or any segment of the criminal justice system.
Prison Inc. doesn't decide where those Alaskan prisoners go, the state does. DC has been sending prisoners to publicly operated prisons in Maryland and Virginia for as long as I can remember. That has nothing to do with the status of the prison.
The second part of the post is just a repetition of the assertion.
If we're going to say that the problem is entirely the fault of the government allowing it...then we agree. :P
And in just DC's case specifically, I think having their prisoners housed in Maryland/Virginia is pretty reasonable. If it were Ohio/Georgia, or something like that...then no.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 07, 2016, 01:51:01 PM
If we're going to say that the problem is entirely the fault of the government allowing it...then we agree. :P
Who else's fault could it be?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2016, 01:30:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2016, 08:33:28 AM
What is interesting here is Yi's faith that the profit motive, in any and all cases, *must* be the proper choice.
Incredibly interesting. You just made this up.
No, I just skipped ahead.
Do prison companies in the US bid for contracts of fixed time length? If so, how is that not the market principle at play, given that the consumer in this situation is the tax payers as represented by the state (and not the inmates)?
However, I don't believe that prisons should be run by any entity other than the state, as per Zanza's post.
In the nuclear industry you can never avoid responsibility by blaming a contractor. If you have a license it's your job to make sure the plant is safe and secure, whether things are done in-house or not.
It is unclear to me why the state can't meet the same standard in this area as nuclear for-profits.
Quote from: Camerus on May 07, 2016, 09:02:01 PM
Do prison companies in the US bid for contracts of fixed time length? If so, how is that not the market principle at play, given that the consumer in this situation is the tax payers as represented by the state (and not the inmates)?
However, I don't believe that prisons should be run by any entity other than the state, as per Zanza's post.
The market principal assumes an informed buyer. I don't think that even the peoples' representatives are informed buyers of prison management services.
The main reason I am more skeptical about the profit motive for prison services than, say, nuclear power generation is that there are no real models for regulation of the prison industry, as there are for the nuclear power industry. When there is a nuclear power fuckup, it gets attention, and everyone tries to learn lessons from it. When there is a prison management fuckup, hardly anyone even notices, and so other companies will make the same mistakes.
The secondary reason for my skepticism is that prison management would seem to me to be far more rife with perverse incentives to the prison management companies than nuclear power generation is for nuclear power companies. If, say, prisoners in solitary require fewer guards than prisoners in the general population, then the management company has an incentive to increase the number of prisoners who are in solitary, to increase profits by lowering costs. That's not how prisons should be run.
FWIW, speaking as a libertarian-leaning conservative, I mostly agree with what was posted in this thread by Zanza, Tonitrus, and Berkut, except that where Zanza thinks prisons should be focused on rehabilitation, I think they should be more focused on punishment (I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 05:36:42 PM
(I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).
What sort of evidence would convince you?
Quote from: Jacob on May 10, 2016, 05:42:56 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 05:36:42 PM
(I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).
What sort of evidence would convince you?
Fair question. I'm not sure; 90% reduction in recidivism, maybe.
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 06:00:00 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 10, 2016, 05:42:56 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 05:36:42 PM
(I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).
What sort of evidence would convince you?
Fair question. I'm not sure; 90% reduction in recidivism, maybe.
Does focusing on punishment meet that threshold?
Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2016, 06:02:58 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 06:00:00 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 10, 2016, 05:42:56 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 05:36:42 PM
(I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).
What sort of evidence would convince you?
Fair question. I'm not sure; 90% reduction in recidivism, maybe.
Does focusing on punishment meet that threshold?
Of course not. Why should it? That's not the point of it.
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 06:06:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2016, 06:02:58 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 06:00:00 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 10, 2016, 05:42:56 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 05:36:42 PM
(I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).
What sort of evidence would convince you?
Fair question. I'm not sure; 90% reduction in recidivism, maybe.
Does focusing on punishment meet that threshold?
Of course not. Why should it? That's not the point of it.
What
is the point of it, if not to make ex-cons afraid to engage in crime again? Just to increase the overall level of human misery?
Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2016, 06:08:21 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 06:06:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2016, 06:02:58 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 06:00:00 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 10, 2016, 05:42:56 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 05:36:42 PM
(I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).
What sort of evidence would convince you?
Fair question. I'm not sure; 90% reduction in recidivism, maybe.
Does focusing on punishment meet that threshold?
Of course not. Why should it? That's not the point of it.
What is the point of it, if not to make ex-cons afraid to engage in crime again? Just to increase the overall level of human misery?
Look up "punitive" in a dictionary.
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 06:09:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2016, 06:08:21 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 06:06:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2016, 06:02:58 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 06:00:00 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 10, 2016, 05:42:56 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 05:36:42 PM
(I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).
What sort of evidence would convince you?
Fair question. I'm not sure; 90% reduction in recidivism, maybe.
Does focusing on punishment meet that threshold?
Of course not. Why should it? That's not the point of it.
What is the point of it, if not to make ex-cons afraid to engage in crime again? Just to increase the overall level of human misery?
Look up "punitive" in a dictionary.
So the purpose of punishment is to be punitive? How perfectly circular.
The debate on "rehabilitation" vs. "punishment" is certainly a good one.
If ones gives a damn about recidivism, taking someone from a crappy/impoverished situation, rolling them through a crappy prison system, and then back into said situation/neighborhood...you almost might as well not even bother.
I dunno if my view on the whole issue is weird...but while I think that the overall correction/penal system is flawed, and should, on the whole, be more "humane"...I also think that perhaps capital punishment is not used enough. There are plenty of people in prison who will never be able to be "corrected", and also definitely manage to go outside the bounds of the "every life is precious" idea (though that idea is so subjective, I'd have to admit not being able to argue against it either). Even in strict logical terms, what is the point of incarcerating someone for their entire life instead of execution? It sometimes seems that it is either being overly merciful, or overly cruel.
On the whole, I am not sure how we treat corrections (e.g., prisons and incarceration), is the best way to rehabilitate people...it just seems to be society's default option for lack of any better ideas, and continues mostly on societal inertia. Thus, perhaps the entire way we look at punishment of crime needs to change. That, or it cannot be changed.
All that rambling being said, I don't pretend to have a great idea to solve it, or a firm stand on any of it...simply because I don't know enough. Except that what we're doing right now isn't really working.
Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2016, 06:08:21 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 06:06:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2016, 06:02:58 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 06:00:00 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 10, 2016, 05:42:56 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 05:36:42 PM
(I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).
What sort of evidence would convince you?
Fair question. I'm not sure; 90% reduction in recidivism, maybe.
Does focusing on punishment meet that threshold?
Of course not. Why should it? That's not the point of it.
What is the point of it, if not to make ex-cons afraid to engage in crime again? Just to increase the overall level of human misery?
I think the correct answer for those who support the punitive part of it is to convince others to not engage in crime to begin with - to make it clear that the risks involved will make most people simply not attempt to engage in crime at all.
Those who engage in it anyway are "punished" not because there is an expectation that this will convince them not to repeat (although I suppose that is a desired side effect at the least) but rather to show the population at large that there really is a good chance you will be punished, and hence should include that in your calculus. The people who have already chosen to ignore that consequence are not surprisingly highly likely to repeat - we've already selected for people for whom the threat of punishment was inadequate.
The problem with THIS argument in the context of dps favoring of this over rehabilitation is that he demands some data to justify the efficacy of rehabilitation, some measured reduction in recidivism. But there isn't any such measure around the effectiveness of the punitive threat either. I suspect it does work, but to what degree seems very hard to measure. I suspect that it certainly doesn't work nearly as well as the fire and brimstone law and order crowd would like to believe though....
Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2016, 06:08:21 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 06:06:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2016, 06:02:58 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 06:00:00 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 10, 2016, 05:42:56 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2016, 05:36:42 PM
(I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).
What sort of evidence would convince you?
Fair question. I'm not sure; 90% reduction in recidivism, maybe.
Does focusing on punishment meet that threshold?
Of course not. Why should it? That's not the point of it.
What is the point of it, if not to make ex-cons afraid to engage in crime again? Just to increase the overall level of human misery?
Here's the traditional answer as to the purpose of imprisonment:
-It denounces unlawful conduct. It sends a message to the broader community that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated.
-It deters the offender. Hopefully the offender doesn't want to return to prison, so changes his behaviour.
-It separates the offender from society. This person can't commit further crimes while locked up.
-It allows for rehabilitation. While the offender is imprisoned you can direct them to take counselling or classes which will help them stay out of trouble upon release.
Do you think a person who kills the rest of humanity should be punished?
Quote from: Barrister on May 18, 2016, 01:32:59 PM
Here's the traditional answer as to the purpose of imprisonment:
-It denounces unlawful conduct. It sends a message to the broader community that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated.
-It deters the offender. Hopefully the offender doesn't want to return to prison, so changes his behaviour.
-It separates the offender from society. This person can't commit further crimes while locked up.
-It allows for rehabilitation. While the offender is imprisoned you can direct them to take counselling or classes which will help them stay out of trouble upon release.
Not to single you out BB, since I think you've done a good job explicating the traditional Criminal Law rationale for incarceration, but this concept in particular drives me crazy. Are the other prisoners not human beings who can be the victims of crimes? Greater society really doesn't tend to give a damn about all the inmate victimized at the hands of other inmates and guards. By imprisoning him, you are just giving the offender a smaller population to victimize, is how that should really read.
Well, concentrating him into a population statistically more likely to victimize him.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 18, 2016, 04:04:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 18, 2016, 01:32:59 PM
Here's the traditional answer as to the purpose of imprisonment:
-It denounces unlawful conduct. It sends a message to the broader community that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated.
-It deters the offender. Hopefully the offender doesn't want to return to prison, so changes his behaviour.
-It separates the offender from society. This person can't commit further crimes while locked up.
-It allows for rehabilitation. While the offender is imprisoned you can direct them to take counselling or classes which will help them stay out of trouble upon release.
Not to single you out BB, since I think you've done a good job explicating the traditional Criminal Law rationale for incarceration, but this concept in particular drives me crazy. Are the other prisoners not human beings who can be the victims of crimes? Greater society really doesn't tend to give a damn about all the inmate victimized at the hands of other inmates and guards. By imprisoning him, you are just giving the offender a smaller population to victimize, is how that should really read.
I've seen Oz. Murder in prison means some member of staff looks concerned and either nothing at all happens and it's instantly forgotten or someone gets the chair within a few weeks.
Quote from: Barrister on May 18, 2016, 01:32:59 PM
Here's the traditional answer as to the purpose of imprisonment:
-It denounces unlawful conduct. It sends a message to the broader community that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated.
-It deters the offender. Hopefully the offender doesn't want to return to prison, so changes his behaviour.
-It separates the offender from society. This person can't commit further crimes while locked up.
-It allows for rehabilitation. While the offender is imprisoned you can direct them to take counselling or classes which will help them stay out of trouble upon release.
One major reason for imprisonment not often explicitly mentioned: to prevent the victims of crime (or their families) from engaging in "self-help" remedies, leading to a cycle of revenge.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 18, 2016, 04:08:33 PM
Well, concentrating him into a population statistically more likely to victimize him.
It depends very heavily on the offense of conviction and the history of previous incarceration, if any.
But even long-timers get stabbed all the time over not paying up the commissary Cheez-Its they wagered in a game of spades, or something equally stupid.
Quote from: Berkut on May 18, 2016, 01:21:54 PM
I think the correct answer for those who support the punitive part of it is to convince others to not engage in crime to begin with - to make it clear that the risks involved will make most people simply not attempt to engage in crime at all.
Those who engage in it anyway are "punished" not because there is an expectation that this will convince them not to repeat (although I suppose that is a desired side effect at the least) but rather to show the population at large that there really is a good chance you will be punished, and hence should include that in your calculus. The people who have already chosen to ignore that consequence are not surprisingly highly likely to repeat - we've already selected for people for whom the threat of punishment was inadequate.
The problem with THIS argument in the context of dps favoring of this over rehabilitation is that he demands some data to justify the efficacy of rehabilitation, some measured reduction in recidivism. But there isn't any such measure around the effectiveness of the punitive threat either. I suspect it does work, but to what degree seems very hard to measure. I suspect that it certainly doesn't work nearly as well as the fire and brimstone law and order crowd would like to believe though....
As I understand it, there is little correlation between the severity of the punishment and discouraging crime; people inclined to break the law rarely consider the scale of the punishment they'll receive *if* they're caught.
What, apparently, does influence it is the perceived likelihood of being caught and the speed and efficacy of determining and applying the punishment.
From an Economist article on this subject I was surprised to learn the US has 30% less cops per capita than the rest of the world.
It also made the same point as Jake about the deterrent effect of likelihood of being caught, though it also said that there is evidence certain crimes are deterred by severity of sentence.