30 ms·

The End of Prison Visitation

268 points by jclulow 10y ago

ptaipale 10y ago
This is an incredible extortion racket. I see a lot of whining about treatment of criminals in America, but if prisons prevent visits in person and charge for video calls, it is just plain wrong.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  That "whining about treatment of criminals" you see is based on a lot of legitimate injustice in the prison industrial complex. Generally speaking, if it seems like whining, it's because you just haven't seen what people go through. Honestly, I consider it criminal how prisoners are treated. In the sense that I believe the people responsible for this stuff should probably be imprisoned in the system they've built. They deserve it at least as much as the non-violent drug offenders behind bars that make up half, or more, of the prison population in some states.
chevas 10y ago
More exploitation of the poor. Poorer people have less choice / options because those extra choices tend to cost money. It's a grave evil when organizations leverage this to take advantage of the poor and it happens all the time.
- sooheon 10y ago
  Literally a captive market.
benjohnson 10y ago
This goes against my religious beliefs - Christians are called to visit prisoners. “I was in prison and you came to visit me … I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” Matthew 25:36, 40
- jughtuyi 10y ago
  You can do what you want in your own home, but you can't demand that the state runs justice in a way that follows your choice of religious texts. I can understand that it's important to take religious views of prisoners into account but if you're just some random person not involved with the prisoner then you'll have to lump it I'm afraid. As it should be.
  - danharaj 10y ago
    > "you can't demand that the state runs justice in a way" > "As it should be." "You can't say how things ought to be run, but i can."
    - jughtuyi 10y ago
      The former a constitutional fact of law, the latter an opinion. I also believe the former to be a moral absolute, which is a second opinion. Clear?
      - dang 10y ago
        We've asked you before not to make troll accounts on HN. It's time you stopped.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - apsec112 10y ago
    Actually, in the United States, you can. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_...), no law can interfere with someone's practice of their religion, unless the law a) does something really important (a "compelling government interest"), and b) there is no reasonable alternative. This applies to the federal government, and many but not all states.
    - 10y ago
steve19 10y ago
Seems criminally barbaric to me. I wonder if contraband in the prison decreased, or if the prison guards were happy to meet demand without having to compete with inmate relatives. I would suspect the latter. A friend of a friend of mine is a prison guard. He is a morally upstanding guy (the type of person you would want to be a prison guard). he hates the job and wants to leave but nobody in the security industry will employ him because they (rightfully so) consider prison guards to be tainted by corruption.
- jughtuyi 10y ago
  Barbarism isn't a crime, so it's not possible to be criminally barbaric.
  - Aelinsaar 10y ago
    Except where barbarism and "cruel and unusual" are synonymous of course...
- omegaham 10y ago
  > but nobody in the security industry will employ him because they (rightfully so) consider prison guards to be tainted by corruption. Just to elaborate, there are a few factors that go into prison guards having a hard time pursuing other employment: 1. Prison guard shifts are often extremely understaffed, which leads to a large amount of buddy-buddy interaction with inmates. "Hey, don't cause trouble on my end, and I'll turn a blind eye to minor (and sometimes major) shenanigans." It's often necessary for the job; inmates can make a prison guard's life hell just by being inmates. It's necessary for a prison guard position, but no security company is going to want to hire someone who happily bends the rules for expediency. 2. The extremely unpleasant nature of the job means that there are three large categories of people who take corrections jobs: the dregs who couldn't get onto a police force, the sadistic fucks who revel in the opportunity to have power over others, and the people who live out in the middle of nowhere who are happy for any employment. The only people whom you'd want to hire from the prison are the third kind, and they're likely to turn you down because they want to stay in Pigknuckle, where there aren't any security jobs. This, hilariously, leads to an interesting "apprenticeship" program to try to detract a little from this - some states require all prospective police officers to spend a couple years as COs. This is intended to make it so that not everyone wearing a uniform is a shitbag, as there are going to be a whole bunch of idealistic, intelligent, driven people who are becoming police officers of high-standard districts. The problem, of course, is that a lot of these guys quickly get a draftee mindset. "Yep, it's more fucked up than a left-handed football bat here, but I'm only here for two years." 3. The stress of the job leads to balanced, stable people getting the fuck out, leaving the dysfunctional trainwrecks. Infidelity is rampant, drama is endemic among the staff, etc. No one wants those people. Source: Girlfriend was a corrections nurse for a couple years to get experience, (local hospital had a glut of nurses and wasn't hiring) still has a lot of CO friends. They're an interesting group of people. By the way, this dynamic hits anywhere that involves dealing with unpleasantness and doesn't pay good money. Inner-city teachers and retirement home care staff have the exact same problems.
zyxley 10y ago
Given the right to a lawyer and the inevitability of technical complications with a proprietary system, I have to wonder if this is even constitutional.
- coldcode 10y ago
  Until the Supreme Court says it is everything in constitutional. Sadly the Supremes often avoid anything that would require actually saying this.
AckSyn 10y ago
This isn't a visit. This is an enhanced phone call.
noonespecial 10y ago
Officials fooling the politicians with fingers-crossed-behind-back weasel words. Wantonly creating "exemptions" for themselves to disobey clear laws. All while knowingly hurting individuals and damaging communities for a few scraps of extorted money. The level of Evil here (yes with the cap) has reached cartoon villain proportions. We probably need a constitutional amendment (the current interpretation of the 8th doesn't seem to be cutting it) detailing prisoners' rights and a separate federal oversight organisation to enforce it. States seem to have been goofing at this for quite some time now and seem powerless to stop it.
- Animats 10y ago
  California used to have a Prisoners' Bill of Rights. It was repealed in 1994.[1] The California Police Officers Bill of Rights was passed in 1974.[2] [1] http://articles.latimes.com/1994-04-05/news/mn-42375_1_prisoners-rights http://articles.latimes.com/1994-04-05/news/mn-42375_1_priso... [2] http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-225344--.html http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-225344--.html
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
bogomipz 10y ago
This is an technology update of the landline extortion racket that Sercurus has has in place. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/23/scandal-phone-call-price-gouging-prisons http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may... There's also another extortion racket to send money: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/prison-bankers-family-visits-bills_n_5902818.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/prison-bankers-fami...
mtgx 10y ago
How is this not a national debate?
- Retra 10y ago
  We don't have national debates, as far as I can tell. Unless you're referring to things like this forum.
- ghostly_s 10y ago
  Puzzled why your comment was downvoted; it's a prudent question. Unfortunately the standard of public discourse has become so shallow in the U.S. that this type of inhumane atrocity being perpetrated by our government is unlikely to get more than three days in the media spotlight.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  The implementation details of the American criminal justice system are considered (by mainstream media gatekeepers, as well as politicians) to be much too unsightly, and fraught with difficult philosophical conflicts (i.e. the matter of whether imprisonments primary purpose is to rehabilitate or punish). The closest they'll go is discussing issues at the scale (and emotional distance) of demographics - racial disparities in arrest/incarceration rates, etc.
rdtsc 10y ago
> the trio of prison telecom giants ratcheted up the prices until a single phone call could cost upward of $14 a minute > 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." > 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 This is disgusting, and what is most disgusting is that the majority of the population probably thinks this is ok. Politicians don't win votes by being nice and soft on crime and making it "easy" for the inmates. Here on HN and in some areas people are aware and understand what is happening. But large swathes of people would not blink an eye at this. Also the prison industrial complex is deeply interested in long sentences and repeat offenders. For them that is a guaranteed source of profit for years ahead. Keep the people there desperate, away from family, turn them into permanent criminals for life, to make sure as soon as they get out, they'll be right back in. On paper they can justify as "it is not a right" or "this is to mitigate risk", "keep costs down", "provide more options". But I can't imagine they are also not thinking about the big picture. No matter the rhetoric about "oh we incarcerate so many people, or we should end war on drugs" as soon as incarcerating people becomes tied to someone making a profit this will never go away.
- taurath 10y ago
  Its literally out of sight out of mind for people. This is not an issue where democracy does well - what we need are administrators with a sense of morality and civic purpose, rather than a mob of people who will respond to any perception of being "weak on crime" by voting for the person creating that perception. There is, frankly, a systemic problem of motivation for anyone to actually fix this - everyone in power gets their cut of the profits here. It seems the american way at this point.
  - cstross 10y ago
    I note that the damage is limited in other countries by not electing judges and prosecutors -- these are appointed civil service posts, and while that has its own drawbacks, it means that nobody below the level of Justice Minister builds a career on the basis of how many convictions they achieve/life sentences they hand out.
mdip 10y ago
Before I start, I'm in favor of in-person visitations and generally agree with this article, but I was frustrated by its one-sided nature. They've presented a case highlighting almost none of the motivations behind video visitations beyond the quick buck ($1/minute) and the prison system's obvious desire to screw the families of inmates[1]. Problem #1 at a prison is security. Physical visitation is a security nightmare for all of the reasons you can imagine. The process is onerous to the visitor, the prisoner and staff. Keeping contraband out is very difficult - you can't give a body-cavity search to a visitor (as far as I know). Yes, there are many ways to get bad things in, but this is one of them. Because of these problems, visitations are scheduled events that occur far too infrequently. This also reduces moral. Many family members of prisoners are unwilling to visit a prisoner for a variety of human factors: being around a large number of criminals is not something most people want to do. Being associated with a person in prison is enough to make a family member not want to visit. Distance, especially in the Federal system where a prisoner can be hundreds of miles away from any family, is a huge barrier. The prisons that I'm aware of that are looking deeper into video visitation are interested in its potential to increase visit frequency and virtual, remote, visitation. It makes the stigma and difficulty of visitation easier (on the visitor) which gives a prisoner a visitor that may not have had one otherwise. That said, while I think it would be OK for a prison to reduce in-person visitations with the availability of remote visitor visitation, I'm firmly against elimination of in-person visitations (for all of the reasons presented in the article). Security, being the first responsibility of a prison, is benefited by not eliminating the program. But there is likely a balance. With visitations being a "paid affair" (especially at those outrageous prices), and with video visitation allowing for an easier to secure environment, there will also be additional motivation to increase the frequency of these "virtual visits", perhaps to the point of the frequency of what is allowed for phone calls. [1] I've chosen that wording because that was my take-away of how the article framed the argument. I do not believe this is the actual motivation of the prison system.
- chmod775 10y ago
  You can, however, give a body-cavity search to a prisoner after visitation. Plus, from my perspective, the first priority of any prison should be rehabilitation and reintegration of the prisoner into society.
bdcravens 10y ago
The article is probably filled with correct information, but starting off with a county jail example (there's a clear distinction between that level and prison) was a knock against credibility, given the title.
- tyingq 10y ago
  There's very little difference between jail and prison for this niche of companies that gouge inmates for telecom, messaging, etc. It's the same companies, with the same tactics.
EGreg 10y ago
Land of the free...
- josh_fyi 10y ago
  Land of the fee...
  - lunchTime42 10y ago
    ...and of the f...
fisherjeff 10y ago
Simply unconscionable. I found out about this recently and many people I've ranted to about it seem to think it's just one of the costs of being a criminal. I guess we've just gotten so "tough on crime" that we've forgotten that many people in jail are there without having been convicted. Moreover, I don't think a lot of people realize that the only reason many of those people are in prison at all is just because they can't afford bail to get out before their trial date.
- cma 10y ago
  We didn't even get public defenders until the mid-60s. There are presumably still people in jail from before the public-defender system.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I found out about this recently and many people I've ranted to about it seem to think it's just one of the costs of being a criminal. Until THAT mentality changes, few things will change. Especially in the country with 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's inmates...
- hueving 10y ago
  >that many people in jail are there without having been convicted Does this scheme apply to jails as well? I was under the impression that this was applicable to state prisons.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    >>Does this scheme apply to jails as well? Yes, it does. Not all jails (nor all prisons) gouge in this way, but the temptation is strong, as companies like Securus share the spoils with the facility.
maxerickson 10y ago
So what's stopping non profits from installing some hardware and letting the prisoners use Hangouts or whatever? I don't mean that in a dismissive sense, I mean it very directly. Is it expensive to maintain the hardware? Are the companies charging the high rates getting exclusive contracts? Do the communications have to be monitored by the provider?
- ghostly_s 10y ago
  Installing it where? Doing business in a prison is far from a free market.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Sure. Is that for good reason, or is it bullshit?
    - chipperyman573 10y ago
      There are some good reasons, such as a vetting process to make sure the company isn't helping the inmates do anything illegal. Doesn't mean that this hasn't gone overboard, but the seed of reason is definitely there.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  Yes, the companies providing the service get exclusive contracts. They also give a portion of the profit to the prison, so of course the prison is going to help them maintain their monopoly. A non-profit can't compete because the companies that DO make a profit have a huge incentive to stop them. They will spend money lobbying lawmakers, prison wardens, etc.
- manigandham 10y ago
  This isn't about tech, it's about politics and profit.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
bigpoppa 10y ago
when did drug possession become a benign crime? last i checked, my man called 'Biz' down the street carries a 9 to protect his drugs and ohh yeah 'respect'. at least someone is profiting off these hooligans.
aioprisan 10y ago
This seems like a natural extension on the existing landline phone extortion that currently takes place, which the FCC tooks steps to curb recently (https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-next-big-steps-reducing-inmate-calling-rates https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-next-big-steps-reduci...), which unfortunately courts then turned around and held up (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/03/07/appeals-court-puts-on-hold-fcc-caps-on-prison-phone-call-charges/ http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/03/07/appeals-court-puts-on-ho...). Hopefully the FCC will step in again and restore some sanity here.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  This point is highlighted in the article.
surrealvortex 10y ago
Just one of a long list of arguments against the privatization of the prison system. There are very few things that should be in the exclusive purview of the government, and the prison system is one of them. Prison, in most cases, should be a way of reducing recidivism. Private prisons have little or no incentive to do that.
- usrusr 10y ago
  > Private prisons have little or no incentive to do that. Understatement of the month. Corporations that happen to be in the business of incarceration have less incentive for reducing recidivism than smartphone makers have incentive for creating hardware that is still working well after two years and one day of use.
ryanmarsh 10y ago
My brother is in prison in Texas. If this happens to his unit and my mother can't visit him I would be the most angry I've ever been in my life. I don't know how I would cope with that. The JPay extortion scheme is bad enough. This is demented.
chinathrow 10y ago
Wow, what a racket. How can people work for these companies and sleep at night?
- duncan_bayne 10y ago
  I'm more understanding of it now that I have children. I know that I can deprive myself in order to avoid unethical work. But my children? I think I could, but it'd be bloody hard emotionally, and I have more sympathy for people who fail that test these days.
  - pcrh 10y ago
    That's the strangest "think of the children" argument I have ever heard. It can't be too hard to avoid working for one of these companies.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      Also the difference from taking home 250k+ a year and 250K+ and a bonus because you hit your targets a year isn't 'for the children' and that is the type of compensation that the people making these decisions at the top are pulling in.
      - peteretep 10y ago
        > Also the difference from taking home 250k+ a year and > 250K+ and a bonus because you hit your targets a year > isn't 'for the children' I take it you're unfamiliar with the cost of private schooling.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        I take it that you are very concerned with perceived social status.
        orangecat 10y ago
tomjen3 10y ago
It probably cost more to drive to prison than 10 USD for the video call from home.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  That's the takeaway here for you?
vansteen 10y ago
In the meantime in Europe ... http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/29/prisons-across-europe-lessons-learned-uk-neighbours http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/29/prisons-acros... http://qz.com/644914/the-netherlands-keeps-having-to-close-its-prisons-due-to-lack-of-prisoners/ http://qz.com/644914/the-netherlands-keeps-having-to-close-i...
- amarkert 10y ago
  I gather that you're Dutch, so here's a Dutch link: http://rechtennieuws.nl/8573/ http://rechtennieuws.nl/8573/ The Netherlands is far from the nice image it has in the international media. It's the leading country in phone taps and has program that gives the police unlimited rights to harass individuals if the mayor of a city says so. Perhaps the prisons are empty, but the direction the country takes is pretty much Orwellian.
  - Freak_NL 10y ago
    > It's the leading country in phone taps That is worrying, but unfortunately not distinctive compared to other countries. > and has program that gives the police unlimited rights to harass individuals if the mayor of a city says so. That is from 2006. Is that still an issue?
    - tremon 10y ago
      Is that still an issue? It's unclear if the practice was entirely abolished, since it was introduced as a reinterpretation of existing law (where have we seen that before?) and has never been challenged in court. But this required a lot of dedicated police presence, and was targeted only towards specific individuals, when sanctioned by an elected offical. It appears the practice was silently discarded because it yielded no results: http://www.hpdetijd.nl/2009-07-10/zin-en-onzin-van-terrorrismebestrijding/ http://www.hpdetijd.nl/2009-07-10/zin-en-onzin-van-terrorris... (complete evaluation report is https://www.nctv.nl/Images/evaluatie-ct-2011_tcm126-444048.pdf https://www.nctv.nl/Images/evaluatie-ct-2011_tcm126-444048.p..., link in article is dead).
devy 10y ago
Perhaps writers should put this trend into the Netflix hit show "Orange is the New Black" to get to wider audiences.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
I think the critical phrase is "tax masquerading as a service fee". This dovetails nicely with the "debtor's prison" article by Alex Tabbarok, Aug 14 2014. "We" want "law and order" ( in the Nixon-era sense of the term ) without paying for it. It's oppression by administrative insouciance.
ourcat 10y ago
Disgusting. And just as bad a "GlobalTel". Who have no idea what the word "global" means when it comes to paying to just talk to the incarcerated from outside the US.
ourcat 10y ago
FCC Moves To Stop Extortion Of Incarcerated Families By Prisons And Phone Companies http://www.ftb2tb.com/ftb2tb-blog/2016/1/4/fcc-moves-to-stop-extortion-of-incarcerated-families-by-prisons-and-phone-companies http://www.ftb2tb.com/ftb2tb-blog/2016/1/4/fcc-moves-to-stop...
Unbeliever69 10y ago
This country needs an enema.
ams6110 10y ago
Do written letters still work?

268 points by jclulow 10y ago

This is an incredible extortion racket. I see a lot of whining about treatment of criminals in America, but if prisons prevent visits in person and charge for video calls, it is just plain wrong.

SwellJoe 10y ago
That "whining about treatment of criminals" you see is based on a lot of legitimate injustice in the prison industrial complex. Generally speaking, if it seems like whining, it's because you just haven't seen what people go through. Honestly, I consider it criminal how prisoners are treated. In the sense that I believe the people responsible for this stuff should probably be imprisoned in the system they've built. They deserve it at least as much as the non-violent drug offenders behind bars that make up half, or more, of the prison population in some states.

chevas 10y ago

More exploitation of the poor. Poorer people have less choice / options because those extra choices tend to cost money. It's a grave evil when organizations leverage this to take advantage of the poor and it happens all the time.

sooheon 10y ago
Literally a captive market.

benjohnson 10y ago

This goes against my religious beliefs - Christians are called to visit prisoners. “I was in prison and you came to visit me … I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” Matthew 25:36, 40

jughtuyi 10y ago
You can do what you want in your own home, but you can't demand that the state runs justice in a way that follows your choice of religious texts. I can understand that it's important to take religious views of prisoners into account but if you're just some random person not involved with the prisoner then you'll have to lump it I'm afraid. As it should be.
- danharaj 10y ago
  > "you can't demand that the state runs justice in a way" > "As it should be." "You can't say how things ought to be run, but i can."
  - jughtuyi 10y ago
    The former a constitutional fact of law, the latter an opinion. I also believe the former to be a moral absolute, which is a second opinion. Clear?
    - dang 10y ago
      We've asked you before not to make troll accounts on HN. It's time you stopped.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- apsec112 10y ago
  Actually, in the United States, you can. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_...), no law can interfere with someone's practice of their religion, unless the law a) does something really important (a "compelling government interest"), and b) there is no reasonable alternative. This applies to the federal government, and many but not all states.
  - 10y ago

steve19 10y ago

Seems criminally barbaric to me. I wonder if contraband in the prison decreased, or if the prison guards were happy to meet demand without having to compete with inmate relatives. I would suspect the latter. A friend of a friend of mine is a prison guard. He is a morally upstanding guy (the type of person you would want to be a prison guard). he hates the job and wants to leave but nobody in the security industry will employ him because they (rightfully so) consider prison guards to be tainted by corruption.

jughtuyi 10y ago
Barbarism isn't a crime, so it's not possible to be criminally barbaric.
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  Except where barbarism and "cruel and unusual" are synonymous of course...
omegaham 10y ago
> but nobody in the security industry will employ him because they (rightfully so) consider prison guards to be tainted by corruption. Just to elaborate, there are a few factors that go into prison guards having a hard time pursuing other employment: 1. Prison guard shifts are often extremely understaffed, which leads to a large amount of buddy-buddy interaction with inmates. "Hey, don't cause trouble on my end, and I'll turn a blind eye to minor (and sometimes major) shenanigans." It's often necessary for the job; inmates can make a prison guard's life hell just by being inmates. It's necessary for a prison guard position, but no security company is going to want to hire someone who happily bends the rules for expediency. 2. The extremely unpleasant nature of the job means that there are three large categories of people who take corrections jobs: the dregs who couldn't get onto a police force, the sadistic fucks who revel in the opportunity to have power over others, and the people who live out in the middle of nowhere who are happy for any employment. The only people whom you'd want to hire from the prison are the third kind, and they're likely to turn you down because they want to stay in Pigknuckle, where there aren't any security jobs. This, hilariously, leads to an interesting "apprenticeship" program to try to detract a little from this - some states require all prospective police officers to spend a couple years as COs. This is intended to make it so that not everyone wearing a uniform is a shitbag, as there are going to be a whole bunch of idealistic, intelligent, driven people who are becoming police officers of high-standard districts. The problem, of course, is that a lot of these guys quickly get a draftee mindset. "Yep, it's more fucked up than a left-handed football bat here, but I'm only here for two years." 3. The stress of the job leads to balanced, stable people getting the fuck out, leaving the dysfunctional trainwrecks. Infidelity is rampant, drama is endemic among the staff, etc. No one wants those people. Source: Girlfriend was a corrections nurse for a couple years to get experience, (local hospital had a glut of nurses and wasn't hiring) still has a lot of CO friends. They're an interesting group of people. By the way, this dynamic hits anywhere that involves dealing with unpleasantness and doesn't pay good money. Inner-city teachers and retirement home care staff have the exact same problems.

zyxley 10y ago

Given the right to a lawyer and the inevitability of technical complications with a proprietary system, I have to wonder if this is even constitutional.

coldcode 10y ago
Until the Supreme Court says it is everything in constitutional. Sadly the Supremes often avoid anything that would require actually saying this.

AckSyn 10y ago

This isn't a visit. This is an enhanced phone call.

noonespecial 10y ago

Officials fooling the politicians with fingers-crossed-behind-back weasel words. Wantonly creating "exemptions" for themselves to disobey clear laws. All while knowingly hurting individuals and damaging communities for a few scraps of extorted money. The level of Evil here (yes with the cap) has reached cartoon villain proportions. We probably need a constitutional amendment (the current interpretation of the 8th doesn't seem to be cutting it) detailing prisoners' rights and a separate federal oversight organisation to enforce it. States seem to have been goofing at this for quite some time now and seem powerless to stop it.

Animats 10y ago
California used to have a Prisoners' Bill of Rights. It was repealed in 1994.[1] The California Police Officers Bill of Rights was passed in 1974.[2] [1] http://articles.latimes.com/1994-04-05/news/mn-42375_1_prisoners-rights http://articles.latimes.com/1994-04-05/news/mn-42375_1_priso... [2] http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-225344--.html http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-225344--.html
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

bogomipz 10y ago

This is an technology update of the landline extortion racket that Sercurus has has in place. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/23/scandal-phone-call-price-gouging-prisons http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may... There's also another extortion racket to send money: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/prison-bankers-family-visits-bills_n_5902818.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/prison-bankers-fami...

mtgx 10y ago

How is this not a national debate?

Retra 10y ago
We don't have national debates, as far as I can tell. Unless you're referring to things like this forum.
ghostly_s 10y ago
Puzzled why your comment was downvoted; it's a prudent question. Unfortunately the standard of public discourse has become so shallow in the U.S. that this type of inhumane atrocity being perpetrated by our government is unlikely to get more than three days in the media spotlight.
MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
The implementation details of the American criminal justice system are considered (by mainstream media gatekeepers, as well as politicians) to be much too unsightly, and fraught with difficult philosophical conflicts (i.e. the matter of whether imprisonments primary purpose is to rehabilitate or punish). The closest they'll go is discussing issues at the scale (and emotional distance) of demographics - racial disparities in arrest/incarceration rates, etc.

rdtsc 10y ago

> the trio of prison telecom giants ratcheted up the prices until a single phone call could cost upward of $14 a minute > 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." > 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 This is disgusting, and what is most disgusting is that the majority of the population probably thinks this is ok. Politicians don't win votes by being nice and soft on crime and making it "easy" for the inmates. Here on HN and in some areas people are aware and understand what is happening. But large swathes of people would not blink an eye at this. Also the prison industrial complex is deeply interested in long sentences and repeat offenders. For them that is a guaranteed source of profit for years ahead. Keep the people there desperate, away from family, turn them into permanent criminals for life, to make sure as soon as they get out, they'll be right back in. On paper they can justify as "it is not a right" or "this is to mitigate risk", "keep costs down", "provide more options". But I can't imagine they are also not thinking about the big picture. No matter the rhetoric about "oh we incarcerate so many people, or we should end war on drugs" as soon as incarcerating people becomes tied to someone making a profit this will never go away.

taurath 10y ago
Its literally out of sight out of mind for people. This is not an issue where democracy does well - what we need are administrators with a sense of morality and civic purpose, rather than a mob of people who will respond to any perception of being "weak on crime" by voting for the person creating that perception. There is, frankly, a systemic problem of motivation for anyone to actually fix this - everyone in power gets their cut of the profits here. It seems the american way at this point.
- cstross 10y ago
  I note that the damage is limited in other countries by not electing judges and prosecutors -- these are appointed civil service posts, and while that has its own drawbacks, it means that nobody below the level of Justice Minister builds a career on the basis of how many convictions they achieve/life sentences they hand out.

mdip 10y ago

Before I start, I'm in favor of in-person visitations and generally agree with this article, but I was frustrated by its one-sided nature. They've presented a case highlighting almost none of the motivations behind video visitations beyond the quick buck ($1/minute) and the prison system's obvious desire to screw the families of inmates[1]. Problem #1 at a prison is security. Physical visitation is a security nightmare for all of the reasons you can imagine. The process is onerous to the visitor, the prisoner and staff. Keeping contraband out is very difficult - you can't give a body-cavity search to a visitor (as far as I know). Yes, there are many ways to get bad things in, but this is one of them. Because of these problems, visitations are scheduled events that occur far too infrequently. This also reduces moral. Many family members of prisoners are unwilling to visit a prisoner for a variety of human factors: being around a large number of criminals is not something most people want to do. Being associated with a person in prison is enough to make a family member not want to visit. Distance, especially in the Federal system where a prisoner can be hundreds of miles away from any family, is a huge barrier. The prisons that I'm aware of that are looking deeper into video visitation are interested in its potential to increase visit frequency and virtual, remote, visitation. It makes the stigma and difficulty of visitation easier (on the visitor) which gives a prisoner a visitor that may not have had one otherwise. That said, while I think it would be OK for a prison to reduce in-person visitations with the availability of remote visitor visitation, I'm firmly against elimination of in-person visitations (for all of the reasons presented in the article). Security, being the first responsibility of a prison, is benefited by not eliminating the program. But there is likely a balance. With visitations being a "paid affair" (especially at those outrageous prices), and with video visitation allowing for an easier to secure environment, there will also be additional motivation to increase the frequency of these "virtual visits", perhaps to the point of the frequency of what is allowed for phone calls. [1] I've chosen that wording because that was my take-away of how the article framed the argument. I do not believe this is the actual motivation of the prison system.

chmod775 10y ago
You can, however, give a body-cavity search to a prisoner after visitation. Plus, from my perspective, the first priority of any prison should be rehabilitation and reintegration of the prisoner into society.

bdcravens 10y ago

The article is probably filled with correct information, but starting off with a county jail example (there's a clear distinction between that level and prison) was a knock against credibility, given the title.

tyingq 10y ago
There's very little difference between jail and prison for this niche of companies that gouge inmates for telecom, messaging, etc. It's the same companies, with the same tactics.

EGreg 10y ago

Land of the free...

josh_fyi 10y ago
Land of the fee...
- lunchTime42 10y ago
  ...and of the f...

fisherjeff 10y ago

Simply unconscionable. I found out about this recently and many people I've ranted to about it seem to think it's just one of the costs of being a criminal. I guess we've just gotten so "tough on crime" that we've forgotten that many people in jail are there without having been convicted. Moreover, I don't think a lot of people realize that the only reason many of those people are in prison at all is just because they can't afford bail to get out before their trial date.

cma 10y ago
We didn't even get public defenders until the mid-60s. There are presumably still people in jail from before the public-defender system.
coldtea 10y ago
>I found out about this recently and many people I've ranted to about it seem to think it's just one of the costs of being a criminal. Until THAT mentality changes, few things will change. Especially in the country with 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's inmates...
hueving 10y ago
>that many people in jail are there without having been convicted Does this scheme apply to jails as well? I was under the impression that this was applicable to state prisons.
- tyingq 10y ago
  >>Does this scheme apply to jails as well? Yes, it does. Not all jails (nor all prisons) gouge in this way, but the temptation is strong, as companies like Securus share the spoils with the facility.

maxerickson 10y ago

So what's stopping non profits from installing some hardware and letting the prisoners use Hangouts or whatever? I don't mean that in a dismissive sense, I mean it very directly. Is it expensive to maintain the hardware? Are the companies charging the high rates getting exclusive contracts? Do the communications have to be monitored by the provider?

ghostly_s 10y ago
Installing it where? Doing business in a prison is far from a free market.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Sure. Is that for good reason, or is it bullshit?
  - chipperyman573 10y ago
    There are some good reasons, such as a vetting process to make sure the company isn't helping the inmates do anything illegal. Doesn't mean that this hasn't gone overboard, but the seed of reason is definitely there.
cortesoft 10y ago
Yes, the companies providing the service get exclusive contracts. They also give a portion of the profit to the prison, so of course the prison is going to help them maintain their monopoly. A non-profit can't compete because the companies that DO make a profit have a huge incentive to stop them. They will spend money lobbying lawmakers, prison wardens, etc.
manigandham 10y ago
This isn't about tech, it's about politics and profit.
- maxerickson 10y ago

bigpoppa 10y ago

when did drug possession become a benign crime? last i checked, my man called 'Biz' down the street carries a 9 to protect his drugs and ohh yeah 'respect'. at least someone is profiting off these hooligans.

aioprisan 10y ago

This seems like a natural extension on the existing landline phone extortion that currently takes place, which the FCC tooks steps to curb recently (https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-next-big-steps-reducing-inmate-calling-rates https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-next-big-steps-reduci...), which unfortunately courts then turned around and held up (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/03/07/appeals-court-puts-on-hold-fcc-caps-on-prison-phone-call-charges/ http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/03/07/appeals-court-puts-on-ho...). Hopefully the FCC will step in again and restore some sanity here.

emodendroket 10y ago
This point is highlighted in the article.

surrealvortex 10y ago

Just one of a long list of arguments against the privatization of the prison system. There are very few things that should be in the exclusive purview of the government, and the prison system is one of them. Prison, in most cases, should be a way of reducing recidivism. Private prisons have little or no incentive to do that.

usrusr 10y ago
> Private prisons have little or no incentive to do that. Understatement of the month. Corporations that happen to be in the business of incarceration have less incentive for reducing recidivism than smartphone makers have incentive for creating hardware that is still working well after two years and one day of use.

ryanmarsh 10y ago

My brother is in prison in Texas. If this happens to his unit and my mother can't visit him I would be the most angry I've ever been in my life. I don't know how I would cope with that. The JPay extortion scheme is bad enough. This is demented.

chinathrow 10y ago

Wow, what a racket. How can people work for these companies and sleep at night?

duncan_bayne 10y ago
I'm more understanding of it now that I have children. I know that I can deprive myself in order to avoid unethical work. But my children? I think I could, but it'd be bloody hard emotionally, and I have more sympathy for people who fail that test these days.
- pcrh 10y ago
  That's the strangest "think of the children" argument I have ever heard. It can't be too hard to avoid working for one of these companies.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Also the difference from taking home 250k+ a year and 250K+ and a bonus because you hit your targets a year isn't 'for the children' and that is the type of compensation that the people making these decisions at the top are pulling in.
    - peteretep 10y ago
      > Also the difference from taking home 250k+ a year and > 250K+ and a bonus because you hit your targets a year > isn't 'for the children' I take it you're unfamiliar with the cost of private schooling.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        I take it that you are very concerned with perceived social status.
        orangecat 10y ago

tomjen3 10y ago

It probably cost more to drive to prison than 10 USD for the video call from home.

emodendroket 10y ago
That's the takeaway here for you?

vansteen 10y ago

In the meantime in Europe ... http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/29/prisons-across-europe-lessons-learned-uk-neighbours http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/29/prisons-acros... http://qz.com/644914/the-netherlands-keeps-having-to-close-its-prisons-due-to-lack-of-prisoners/ http://qz.com/644914/the-netherlands-keeps-having-to-close-i...

amarkert 10y ago
I gather that you're Dutch, so here's a Dutch link: http://rechtennieuws.nl/8573/ http://rechtennieuws.nl/8573/ The Netherlands is far from the nice image it has in the international media. It's the leading country in phone taps and has program that gives the police unlimited rights to harass individuals if the mayor of a city says so. Perhaps the prisons are empty, but the direction the country takes is pretty much Orwellian.
- Freak_NL 10y ago
  > It's the leading country in phone taps That is worrying, but unfortunately not distinctive compared to other countries. > and has program that gives the police unlimited rights to harass individuals if the mayor of a city says so. That is from 2006. Is that still an issue?
  - tremon 10y ago
    Is that still an issue? It's unclear if the practice was entirely abolished, since it was introduced as a reinterpretation of existing law (where have we seen that before?) and has never been challenged in court. But this required a lot of dedicated police presence, and was targeted only towards specific individuals, when sanctioned by an elected offical. It appears the practice was silently discarded because it yielded no results: http://www.hpdetijd.nl/2009-07-10/zin-en-onzin-van-terrorrismebestrijding/ http://www.hpdetijd.nl/2009-07-10/zin-en-onzin-van-terrorris... (complete evaluation report is https://www.nctv.nl/Images/evaluatie-ct-2011_tcm126-444048.pdf https://www.nctv.nl/Images/evaluatie-ct-2011_tcm126-444048.p..., link in article is dead).

devy 10y ago

Perhaps writers should put this trend into the Netflix hit show "Orange is the New Black" to get to wider audiences.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

I think the critical phrase is "tax masquerading as a service fee". This dovetails nicely with the "debtor's prison" article by Alex Tabbarok, Aug 14 2014. "We" want "law and order" ( in the Nixon-era sense of the term ) without paying for it. It's oppression by administrative insouciance.

ourcat 10y ago

Disgusting. And just as bad a "GlobalTel". Who have no idea what the word "global" means when it comes to paying to just talk to the incarcerated from outside the US.

ourcat 10y ago

FCC Moves To Stop Extortion Of Incarcerated Families By Prisons And Phone Companies http://www.ftb2tb.com/ftb2tb-blog/2016/1/4/fcc-moves-to-stop-extortion-of-incarcerated-families-by-prisons-and-phone-companies http://www.ftb2tb.com/ftb2tb-blog/2016/1/4/fcc-moves-to-stop...

Unbeliever69 10y ago

This country needs an enema.

ams6110 10y ago

Do written letters still work?