7 ms·

Terrible policy. In-person visitation is known [0][1] to reduce recidivism rates. Video visitation should be included as an addition, not a replacement, to in-p

Terrible policy. In-person visitation is known [0][1] to reduce recidivism rates. Video visitation should be included as an addition, not a replacement, to in-person visitation. Lots more information about the subject (costs, providers, etc.) can be found at Prison Policy Initiative: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/visitation/report.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/visitation/report.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/prisonvisits.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/prisonvisits.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/phones/state_of_phone_justice.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/phones/state_of_phone_justice.h... [0]: https://law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/liman/document/prison_visitation_policies.pdf https://law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/liman/document... [1]: https://mn.gov/doc/assets/11-11MNPrisonVisitationStudy_tcm1089-272781.pdf https://mn.gov/doc/assets/11-11MNPrisonVisitationStudy_tcm10...

WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
> reduce recidivism rates But that's the point.
- renholder 8y ago
  Right!? You can't have prisons run by for-profit companies and then expect everyone to believe you want low recidivism rates - much less low crime rates. Bodies make the businesses money, businesses making money keep running the jails/prisons, and "being tough on crime" gets the votes - so it's a self-perpetuating machine. >These services are ludicrously expensive. Video calls cost 40¢ per minute in Newton County, 50¢ per minute in Lowndes County, and $10 per call in Allen County. The use of the video system is now compulsory, in person visits are banned, and another at-cost for families of criminals is seemingly tacked on because... ...freedom? Capitalism? At what point do we agree tapping the families of inmates (note: not the inmates, themselves) out of money is going too far?
  - thatswrong0 8y ago
    > You can't have prisons run by for-profit companies IIRC only ~10% of prisoners are held in privately run prisons. It's kind of a red herring. The bigger (and much harder to solve issue) is that all prisons, public or private, work with a slew of private companies in order to run (think food, phones, etc.) who have big incentives to keep the prison population high. And they can easily prey on prisoners, who are generally much poorer than the general population, because of America's concept of "justice". But these huge costs of, say, video calls, are borne by the families of the incarcerated, who, like the prisoners that they're supporting, skew poor. As you pointed out, it's a vicious cycle.
    - briffle 8y ago
      I'd almost be okay with the COSTS of the tech being borne by the families, Even with a reasonable profit to the company, but the extra kickback to the jail gives a very perverse incentive to raise rates over and over, to bring in more fees. It also means someone with a competing product, that is better, and cheaper, won't be looked at seriously, if it doesn't include kickbacks.. (or do we call it something else now?)
      - FireBeyond 8y ago
        > if it doesn't include kickbacks "incentive schemes" to "encourage prisoners to use video visits over personal visits".
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      After living in the US since 2000 I believe that a majority of the US population believes in the punishment aspect of prison and thinks it's OK to make prison life as miserable as possible. There is not much thought about rehabilitation and I have heard lines like "Why do we have to pay for job training for them if I have to pay for college?" even from very liberal people. Punishing people as hard as possible is deeply entrenched in the american psyche.
      - jstarfish 8y ago
        > I have heard lines like "Why do we have to pay for job training for them if I have to pay for college?" The answer to this is always, "...to keep his knife away from your throat."
        mynameishere 8y ago
        You know, there are legitimate answers to that strawmanish question. Why would you say something ridiculous like that, which just begs the further response, "Well, then we better not release such monsters at all..."
        zeveb 8y ago
  - lotu 8y ago
    > You can't have prisons run by for-profit companies and then expect everyone to believe you want low recidivism rates Sure you can, it's just no one is doing. The private market is very efficient at finding the most efficient way to provide the things they are paid for. In this case they are paid to house people where house has a specific minimum definition. They figure out how to provide that stuff and nothing else. If instead we paid in a way that encouraged reducing recidivism they would find a way to do that instead. For example today (according to google) the average prissioner costs $30K per year per inmate. let's say we paid $10K per year as a base, but then paid another $10K every year a former prisoner didn't commit a new crime for 5-7 years after they got out. Then these companies would be looking for ways to ensure that people don't reoffend because that means they lose out on the vast majority of their pay. I would expect the greedy selfish private prison companies to start providing lots things that prisoners will need to be successful when they leave for example behavior management strategies, life skills classes, GED programs, diagnosis and treatment for mental illness, even providing free post release things like job placement, or family counseling. All because these are things the will prevent recidivism and get them that sweet yearly payout. The thing about greedy capitalists, is they are very easy manage, if you are the one paying them. If they are the ones paying you... well we call that corruption. Really I think the fact we don't see more of this type of pattern suggests that city and states that run prisons care more about punishment than rehabilitation.
    - piokoch 8y ago
      That's what you propose sounds like a really good idea. One concern though: it seems that many people (not all of them) who end up in prison are not really a good people. Maybe for some of them education, psychological help, etc. would indeed help, however there could be a certain and not negligible percentage of people who will not take advantage of those opportunities and prefer to be criminals. No private company would decide to risk its income for a potentially bad bet. Recidivism rates in the US are high - from 45 to 80 percent (depending on various factors). Even if this was cut to best of the World Swedish 40% recidivism rate, this still will not be economically viable.
      - FireBeyond 8y ago
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > You can't have prisons run by for-profit companies Prison officials and guards have financial incentive in keeping the imprisoning people business booming even when they work in public prisons.
- OrgNet 8y ago
  profits before common sense
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
T800M101 8y ago
Video chat wouldn't be so bad if the friends or relatives can't physically be there. But not as a 1:1 replacement. And certainly not for a fee. It's asinine for someone to have to pay for this and I hope someone drops a lawsuit on them for this obvious travesty.
- tropo 8y ago
  Would you severely limit the time? If you don't, and you don't charge a fee, then the costs become insane. You see, this isn't just a data connection. Somebody must be paid to observe the video, making sure that it isn't being used for crime. That person must understand the accent, slang, codewords, and everything else. That person must be trustworthy. That person won't be cheap. Without an observer, prisoners will get up to all sorts of mischief. They will order witnesses and judges killed. They will continue to operate organized crime. They will pass along threats.
  - colejohnson66 8y ago
    But they already needed that stuff for in person visits? I’m confused what you’re trying to say
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
> ... reduce recidivism rates. That's no longer the goal. Prison contracts are usually billed flat rate. If JD locks up more prisoners, they get a better deal.
rwmj 8y ago
The principal agent problem - higher recidivism rates cost society indirectly over the long term, but jails make more money in the here and now.
- sitkack 8y ago
  > jails make more money Society should profit from jails in that they have higher quality citizens.
  - sitkack 8y ago
    I think people are taking this wrong, at least I hope so!
- andrewla 8y ago
  Are you under the impression that the prisons mentioned in the article are privately run? That is incorrect, all three are run by the municipality. Only something like 10% of prisons in the US are privately operated.
  - nyolfen 8y ago
    municipalities are also very concerned with costs and revenue. around here many sheriffs make running their jail at the lowest cost to the county as possible their major point of electability. revenue from the usurious rates the video call services charge is in fact a major reason they’re implemented.
- wefarrell 8y ago
  Why not provide a financial incentive to reduce recidivism? Is that not currently the case?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Why not provide a financial incentive to reduce recidivism? Is that not currently the case? Because then prison officials would have incentives to aid ex-prisoners in avoiding being identified as perpetrators of later crimes.
serf 8y ago
Terrible policy. In-person visitation is known [0][1] to reduce recidivism rates. I don't agree with the policy change; but is it known that video-chat and equivalents don't have a similar effect?

WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago

> reduce recidivism rates But that's the point.

renholder 8y ago
Right!? You can't have prisons run by for-profit companies and then expect everyone to believe you want low recidivism rates - much less low crime rates. Bodies make the businesses money, businesses making money keep running the jails/prisons, and "being tough on crime" gets the votes - so it's a self-perpetuating machine. >These services are ludicrously expensive. Video calls cost 40¢ per minute in Newton County, 50¢ per minute in Lowndes County, and $10 per call in Allen County. The use of the video system is now compulsory, in person visits are banned, and another at-cost for families of criminals is seemingly tacked on because... ...freedom? Capitalism? At what point do we agree tapping the families of inmates (note: not the inmates, themselves) out of money is going too far?
- thatswrong0 8y ago
  > You can't have prisons run by for-profit companies IIRC only ~10% of prisoners are held in privately run prisons. It's kind of a red herring. The bigger (and much harder to solve issue) is that all prisons, public or private, work with a slew of private companies in order to run (think food, phones, etc.) who have big incentives to keep the prison population high. And they can easily prey on prisoners, who are generally much poorer than the general population, because of America's concept of "justice". But these huge costs of, say, video calls, are borne by the families of the incarcerated, who, like the prisoners that they're supporting, skew poor. As you pointed out, it's a vicious cycle.
  - briffle 8y ago
    I'd almost be okay with the COSTS of the tech being borne by the families, Even with a reasonable profit to the company, but the extra kickback to the jail gives a very perverse incentive to raise rates over and over, to bring in more fees. It also means someone with a competing product, that is better, and cheaper, won't be looked at seriously, if it doesn't include kickbacks.. (or do we call it something else now?)
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      > if it doesn't include kickbacks "incentive schemes" to "encourage prisoners to use video visits over personal visits".
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    After living in the US since 2000 I believe that a majority of the US population believes in the punishment aspect of prison and thinks it's OK to make prison life as miserable as possible. There is not much thought about rehabilitation and I have heard lines like "Why do we have to pay for job training for them if I have to pay for college?" even from very liberal people. Punishing people as hard as possible is deeply entrenched in the american psyche.
    - jstarfish 8y ago
      > I have heard lines like "Why do we have to pay for job training for them if I have to pay for college?" The answer to this is always, "...to keep his knife away from your throat."
      - mynameishere 8y ago
        You know, there are legitimate answers to that strawmanish question. Why would you say something ridiculous like that, which just begs the further response, "Well, then we better not release such monsters at all..."
      - zeveb 8y ago
- lotu 8y ago
  > You can't have prisons run by for-profit companies and then expect everyone to believe you want low recidivism rates Sure you can, it's just no one is doing. The private market is very efficient at finding the most efficient way to provide the things they are paid for. In this case they are paid to house people where house has a specific minimum definition. They figure out how to provide that stuff and nothing else. If instead we paid in a way that encouraged reducing recidivism they would find a way to do that instead. For example today (according to google) the average prissioner costs $30K per year per inmate. let's say we paid $10K per year as a base, but then paid another $10K every year a former prisoner didn't commit a new crime for 5-7 years after they got out. Then these companies would be looking for ways to ensure that people don't reoffend because that means they lose out on the vast majority of their pay. I would expect the greedy selfish private prison companies to start providing lots things that prisoners will need to be successful when they leave for example behavior management strategies, life skills classes, GED programs, diagnosis and treatment for mental illness, even providing free post release things like job placement, or family counseling. All because these are things the will prevent recidivism and get them that sweet yearly payout. The thing about greedy capitalists, is they are very easy manage, if you are the one paying them. If they are the ones paying you... well we call that corruption. Really I think the fact we don't see more of this type of pattern suggests that city and states that run prisons care more about punishment than rehabilitation.
  - piokoch 8y ago
    That's what you propose sounds like a really good idea. One concern though: it seems that many people (not all of them) who end up in prison are not really a good people. Maybe for some of them education, psychological help, etc. would indeed help, however there could be a certain and not negligible percentage of people who will not take advantage of those opportunities and prefer to be criminals. No private company would decide to risk its income for a potentially bad bet. Recidivism rates in the US are high - from 45 to 80 percent (depending on various factors). Even if this was cut to best of the World Swedish 40% recidivism rate, this still will not be economically viable.
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > You can't have prisons run by for-profit companies Prison officials and guards have financial incentive in keeping the imprisoning people business booming even when they work in public prisons.
OrgNet 8y ago
profits before common sense
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

T800M101 8y ago

Video chat wouldn't be so bad if the friends or relatives can't physically be there. But not as a 1:1 replacement. And certainly not for a fee. It's asinine for someone to have to pay for this and I hope someone drops a lawsuit on them for this obvious travesty.

tropo 8y ago
Would you severely limit the time? If you don't, and you don't charge a fee, then the costs become insane. You see, this isn't just a data connection. Somebody must be paid to observe the video, making sure that it isn't being used for crime. That person must understand the accent, slang, codewords, and everything else. That person must be trustworthy. That person won't be cheap. Without an observer, prisoners will get up to all sorts of mischief. They will order witnesses and judges killed. They will continue to operate organized crime. They will pass along threats.
- colejohnson66 8y ago
  But they already needed that stuff for in person visits? I’m confused what you’re trying to say

JustSomeNobody 8y ago

> ... reduce recidivism rates. That's no longer the goal. Prison contracts are usually billed flat rate. If JD locks up more prisoners, they get a better deal.

rwmj 8y ago

The principal agent problem - higher recidivism rates cost society indirectly over the long term, but jails make more money in the here and now.

sitkack 8y ago
> jails make more money Society should profit from jails in that they have higher quality citizens.
- sitkack 8y ago
  I think people are taking this wrong, at least I hope so!
andrewla 8y ago
Are you under the impression that the prisons mentioned in the article are privately run? That is incorrect, all three are run by the municipality. Only something like 10% of prisons in the US are privately operated.
- nyolfen 8y ago
  municipalities are also very concerned with costs and revenue. around here many sheriffs make running their jail at the lowest cost to the county as possible their major point of electability. revenue from the usurious rates the video call services charge is in fact a major reason they’re implemented.
wefarrell 8y ago
Why not provide a financial incentive to reduce recidivism? Is that not currently the case?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Why not provide a financial incentive to reduce recidivism? Is that not currently the case? Because then prison officials would have incentives to aid ex-prisoners in avoiding being identified as perpetrators of later crimes.

serf 8y ago

Terrible policy. In-person visitation is known [0][1] to reduce recidivism rates. I don't agree with the policy change; but is it known that video-chat and equivalents don't have a similar effect?