3 ms·

Let's say you are in prison for online fraud. You get internet access. You'll continue to fraud.

by gsich 9y ago

occultist_throw 9y ago
Sure, because segregating and separating prisoners from everything is a great way to reintegrate them back in society... Oh, that. We don't care about reintegration. We don't care if they survive outside of prison. And with what little educational abilities have been destroyed, are we surprised in the least that they go back to criminal actions to make money?
- Cthulhu_ 9y ago
  So you're saying people guilty of computer fraud should retain access to computers? Don't get me wrong, I do agree that the US justice system is focused on punishment instead of revalidation and there's a lot that can be improved there, but this is about giving people who have a problem access to that which enabled their problem.
  - mavhc 9y ago
    To be fair we do let people convicted of arson continue to have access to oxygen
  - Pica_soO 9y ago
    Eh, yes, because IOT makes everything a computer on the internet? That law cuts them off from shoes, cups and cars? Basically a mandatory tamper-proof store of a felonys internet use and access would be enough. If the evidence is not there - or they went astray..
- icebraining 9y ago
  Does any limit imposed on the inmate's communications prevent reintegration? I'm not saying the current system - which is very exploitative of inmates, with extremely expensive calls - is anywhere near OK. But that doesn't mean you can't have provide inmates with decent communication accessibilities without having uncontrolled cellphones with them.
Chaebixi 9y ago
The balance has been struck all wrong, though, with thinking like that totally dominating the policy discussion. Yes, there are some inmates (like fruadsters, drug kingpins) who will use any communication channel for more crime, but there are probably many more that won't. I'm for keeping the latter in close contact with their non-criminal family, friends, and support networks in the interests of keeping recidivism low as well as moral reasons. Meanwhile, we have private companies profiting off of exploitatively-priced communications services for inmates, when both they and their families are often in little position to pay the excessive charges: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/republican-led-fcc-drops-court-defense-of-inmate-calling-rate-cap/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/republican-led-f... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/technology/fcc-prison-phone-calls-regulations.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/technology/fcc-prison-pho... The best (if not most profitable) solution, IMHO, is to offer inmates a low cost to free, monitored telephone service that they can use to call people on a white-list. If they're found to be abusing it, it can be taken away, but it should be otherwise unlimited.

Let's say you are in prison for online fraud. You get internet access. You'll continue to fraud.

by gsich 9y ago

Let's say you are in prison for online fraud. You get internet access. You'll continue to fraud.

Sure, because segregating and separating prisoners from everything is a great way to reintegrate them back in society... Oh, that. We don't care about reintegration. We don't care if they survive outside of prison. And with what little educational abilities have been destroyed, are we surprised in the least that they go back to criminal actions to make money?

Cthulhu_ 9y ago
So you're saying people guilty of computer fraud should retain access to computers? Don't get me wrong, I do agree that the US justice system is focused on punishment instead of revalidation and there's a lot that can be improved there, but this is about giving people who have a problem access to that which enabled their problem.
- mavhc 9y ago
  To be fair we do let people convicted of arson continue to have access to oxygen
- Pica_soO 9y ago
  Eh, yes, because IOT makes everything a computer on the internet? That law cuts them off from shoes, cups and cars? Basically a mandatory tamper-proof store of a felonys internet use and access would be enough. If the evidence is not there - or they went astray..
icebraining 9y ago
Does any limit imposed on the inmate's communications prevent reintegration? I'm not saying the current system - which is very exploitative of inmates, with extremely expensive calls - is anywhere near OK. But that doesn't mean you can't have provide inmates with decent communication accessibilities without having uncontrolled cellphones with them.

Chaebixi 9y ago

The balance has been struck all wrong, though, with thinking like that totally dominating the policy discussion. Yes, there are some inmates (like fruadsters, drug kingpins) who will use any communication channel for more crime, but there are probably many more that won't. I'm for keeping the latter in close contact with their non-criminal family, friends, and support networks in the interests of keeping recidivism low as well as moral reasons. Meanwhile, we have private companies profiting off of exploitatively-priced communications services for inmates, when both they and their families are often in little position to pay the excessive charges: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/republican-led-fcc-drops-court-defense-of-inmate-calling-rate-cap/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/republican-led-f... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/technology/fcc-prison-phone-calls-regulations.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/technology/fcc-prison-pho... The best (if not most profitable) solution, IMHO, is to offer inmates a low cost to free, monitored telephone service that they can use to call people on a white-list. If they're found to be abusing it, it can be taken away, but it should be otherwise unlimited.