4 ms·

While I find the conversations in here interesting from an economics perspective they are not solutions to the real problem. This is not a function of cost betw

by avs733 11y ago

While I find the conversations in here interesting from an economics perspective they are not solutions to the real problem. This is not a function of cost between inmate, provider, and family alone. These phone systems have a real and tangible cost on society as a whole. An enormous body of research [1] showing that offenders with better/more familial contact while incarcerated have vastly lower recidivism rates. This is literally companies causing harm (and not just economic) harm to societies citizens at large. I respect jlafon's point of view but I can't agree. The fact that a system you create is difficult to adminster should not mean that the cost of dealing with it should be passed along to your 'customers' (gagging as I use that word). When a group of people chooses to put others in a position of limited power they have a responsibility to protect them from harm. Treating prisoners as a revenue stream at all is immoral and I believe unconstitutional. The argument that they should pay or do anything to contribute to their imprisonment is vapid and ugly. If we aren't willing to shoulder the burden of imprisoning them then we shouldn't do it. We absolutely should not be charging them or their families usury amounts of money to satisfy rules and situations we created. Letting prisoners use the phone is labor intensive? Why? because you created rules and a system where it is. To spin it as more complicated or containing 'reasons' is post hoc justification nonsense and should be treated as such. [1] Summarized here: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/apr/15/lowering-recidivism-through-family-communication/ https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/apr/15/lowering-re...

superuser2 11y ago
The 13th Amendment goes out of its way to specify that slavery is permitted for convicts. I agree that it's immoral, but it's explicitly, unambiguously Constitutional.
- avs733 10y ago
  Apologies for a delayed response...traveling and such...I understand the perspective from an absolute sense but I think there are three major problems with this analysis. 1) The system we are discussing more directly punishes the families of those convicted by crimes. That is manifestly unconstitutional on several levels including as it furthers not substantive government interest and restricts both the rights of non-prisoners and prisoners. [1a]. The courts have gone out of their way to uphold the rights of non-prisoners to communicate with prisoners [1b] which this effects. 2) Prisoners are already a protected class in research, specifically because they are not fully able to make uncoerced and voluntary decisions. The industry we are discussing is not beholden to the standards of IRB, but the prisons are still held to a minimal standard of duty of care. [e.g., 2] Allowing them to be monetized at the expense of all evidence of their rehabilitation, care, and well being would not seem to be a reasonable or sincere attempt to meet that standard. If not for 30 years of jurisprudence that treats prisoners as an annoyance 3) The slavery that the reading of the 13th amendment you reference is built around comes from the late 1800's. It referenced prison systems where the prisons were almost entirely self-sufficient based on inmate labor. [3] To use the language of the courts, prisoners were 'slaves of the state' in deference to their participation in this system. That does not mean they have entirely given up their rights [e.g., to free speech [1a,b]], but rather that they are significantly restricted. The prison phone scams and associated employment for private gain in prisons have nothing to do with slavery to the state so as to support the costs of the prison system. Rather this modern 13th amendment slavery to benefit private entities should be treated as unsettled (mostly because the courts defer in an almost unfathomable fashion to corrections departments) or a very troubling new reading of the 13th amendment. [1a] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/396/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/396/case.htm... [1b] http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&context=iplj http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=108... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_v._Brennan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_v._Brennan [3] https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=162920 https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=1629...
vkou 11y ago
> Treating prisoners as a revenue stream at all is immoral and I believe unconstitutional. Doubtful. The Constitution makes it clear that slavery is illegal... Except in the case of prisoners. If you can subject prisoners to forced labor, gouging them on phone calls seems a small step.
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  On the other hand, denying them access to an affordable communication line to their families -- in an age when such services are cheaper than water,† for the general population -- is arguably cruel and unusual punishment. And to the prisoners' families -- it's most especially cruel. † Okay, the calls need monitoring, which increases the cost somewhat. But not by much, and not nearly in proportion to the rates they're currently being gouged for, in some states.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    > Okay, the calls need monitoring There is an honest question as to whether they do in all cases. How is listening to the phone calls of someone in prison for shoplifting or drunk driving not a complete waste of resources?
    - vertex-four 11y ago
      If it became known they weren't being listened to, they'd be paid by people who were being listened to to act as a communication line.
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        You don't tell them they aren't being listened to, you just don't bother listening to them. And maybe you do random sampling. But what problem are you identifying that doesn't already exist via mob attorneys?
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      I was just acknowledging that the need may exist in the worst possible cases. For the greater sake of demolishing the (perceived) justifications that are touted for this largely wasteful, predatory and vindictive practice.
jupiter90000 11y ago
Reading your reference quickly, what stuck out to me is whether the prisoners have already existing better relationships with family prior to incarceration, leading to more regular communication while in prison, and greater integration with family and society after release resulting in lower recidivism. Those who aren't staying in touch may have gone into prison without ongoing family relationships, reduced connections to society, and later, increased risk of recidivism. Perhaps your link addressed that, I didn't notice it though. I think the system is screwed, don't get me wrong, but the reference may be attributing a surface level effect (allowed to make calls) to a more latent thing (already have decent integration with family and society).
- avs733 10y ago
  No direct answer but I think the argument is that no matter what restrictions that make communication difficult or intentionally unpleasant have a negative impact. Your question somewhat assumes that the communicate/no communicate is mostly a manifestation of prior familial relations rather than prison actions that prevent contact...i.e.,: >For example, one female attorney said she was told by prison officials that she could not visit a prisoner because her underwire bra set off the metal detector. After leaving, removing her bra and then returning, she was told she could not visit because she wasn’t wearing a bra. The possibility for latent effects obviously exists, but there are actions taken by the prisons that can only be seen as attempts to reduce contact, which we can see has a negative impact. Whether its a formative or reflective latent doesn't seem like something that should be a driving factor in decisions here to me.

by avs733 11y ago

superuser2 11y ago

The 13th Amendment goes out of its way to specify that slavery is permitted for convicts. I agree that it's immoral, but it's explicitly, unambiguously Constitutional.

avs733 10y ago
Apologies for a delayed response...traveling and such...I understand the perspective from an absolute sense but I think there are three major problems with this analysis. 1) The system we are discussing more directly punishes the families of those convicted by crimes. That is manifestly unconstitutional on several levels including as it furthers not substantive government interest and restricts both the rights of non-prisoners and prisoners. [1a]. The courts have gone out of their way to uphold the rights of non-prisoners to communicate with prisoners [1b] which this effects. 2) Prisoners are already a protected class in research, specifically because they are not fully able to make uncoerced and voluntary decisions. The industry we are discussing is not beholden to the standards of IRB, but the prisons are still held to a minimal standard of duty of care. [e.g., 2] Allowing them to be monetized at the expense of all evidence of their rehabilitation, care, and well being would not seem to be a reasonable or sincere attempt to meet that standard. If not for 30 years of jurisprudence that treats prisoners as an annoyance 3) The slavery that the reading of the 13th amendment you reference is built around comes from the late 1800's. It referenced prison systems where the prisons were almost entirely self-sufficient based on inmate labor. [3] To use the language of the courts, prisoners were 'slaves of the state' in deference to their participation in this system. That does not mean they have entirely given up their rights [e.g., to free speech [1a,b]], but rather that they are significantly restricted. The prison phone scams and associated employment for private gain in prisons have nothing to do with slavery to the state so as to support the costs of the prison system. Rather this modern 13th amendment slavery to benefit private entities should be treated as unsettled (mostly because the courts defer in an almost unfathomable fashion to corrections departments) or a very troubling new reading of the 13th amendment. [1a] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/396/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/396/case.htm... [1b] http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&context=iplj http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=108... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_v._Brennan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_v._Brennan [3] https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=162920 https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=1629...

vkou 11y ago

> Treating prisoners as a revenue stream at all is immoral and I believe unconstitutional. Doubtful. The Constitution makes it clear that slavery is illegal... Except in the case of prisoners. If you can subject prisoners to forced labor, gouging them on phone calls seems a small step.

kafkaesq 11y ago
On the other hand, denying them access to an affordable communication line to their families -- in an age when such services are cheaper than water,† for the general population -- is arguably cruel and unusual punishment. And to the prisoners' families -- it's most especially cruel. † Okay, the calls need monitoring, which increases the cost somewhat. But not by much, and not nearly in proportion to the rates they're currently being gouged for, in some states.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  > Okay, the calls need monitoring There is an honest question as to whether they do in all cases. How is listening to the phone calls of someone in prison for shoplifting or drunk driving not a complete waste of resources?
  - vertex-four 11y ago
    If it became known they weren't being listened to, they'd be paid by people who were being listened to to act as a communication line.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      You don't tell them they aren't being listened to, you just don't bother listening to them. And maybe you do random sampling. But what problem are you identifying that doesn't already exist via mob attorneys?
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    I was just acknowledging that the need may exist in the worst possible cases. For the greater sake of demolishing the (perceived) justifications that are touted for this largely wasteful, predatory and vindictive practice.

jupiter90000 11y ago

Reading your reference quickly, what stuck out to me is whether the prisoners have already existing better relationships with family prior to incarceration, leading to more regular communication while in prison, and greater integration with family and society after release resulting in lower recidivism. Those who aren't staying in touch may have gone into prison without ongoing family relationships, reduced connections to society, and later, increased risk of recidivism. Perhaps your link addressed that, I didn't notice it though. I think the system is screwed, don't get me wrong, but the reference may be attributing a surface level effect (allowed to make calls) to a more latent thing (already have decent integration with family and society).

avs733 10y ago
No direct answer but I think the argument is that no matter what restrictions that make communication difficult or intentionally unpleasant have a negative impact. Your question somewhat assumes that the communicate/no communicate is mostly a manifestation of prior familial relations rather than prison actions that prevent contact...i.e.,: >For example, one female attorney said she was told by prison officials that she could not visit a prisoner because her underwire bra set off the metal detector. After leaving, removing her bra and then returning, she was told she could not visit because she wasn’t wearing a bra. The possibility for latent effects obviously exists, but there are actions taken by the prisons that can only be seen as attempts to reduce contact, which we can see has a negative impact. Whether its a formative or reflective latent doesn't seem like something that should be a driving factor in decisions here to me.