3 ms·
> In a statement to Reason, a WVDCR spokesperson noted that no inmates are being forced to use the tablets. Yeah but they are locking them in a room for extend
by anm89 7y ago
> In a statement to Reason, a WVDCR spokesperson noted that no inmates are being forced to use the tablets.
Yeah but they are locking them in a room for extended periods with nothing else to do. They are only not being forced to do it by a technicality.
- smabie 7y agoI don’t think that providing these things is problematic in itself (though the crony capitalism is worrying). The problem is that many prisons no longer allow book donations or free access to book. In my opinion, categorically, providing more chance cannot be wrong. The problem is when choice is removed (in this case, reading paper books). The problem is that the state isn’t willing to invest money in making prisons better. This stems from the unclear nature of what prisons are for: a debt paid to society, justice, rehabilitation, or maybe to prevent further crimes? If your answer is justice or debt, then you can make good arguments why prisons shouldn’t be nice. If you think they’re for rehabilitation or prevention of crime, then tablets, TVs, etc are probably a good idea. Since we don’t all agree on the moral justification for inprisonment, the state just provides the most basic services. This means that only companies are going to provide these services, which are arguably predatory. Prison is a hard thing to get right, no matter what you do some people are going to get upset. Regardless, I think most of us can agree that these contracts handed out by states to these companies are problematic and stink of cronyism. Probably the only reason these contracts got signed was that the prisons were netting a percentage of the sales, allowing them to increase salaries and stuff: in essence, an indirect bribe for state employees. In return, the state probably agreed to ban books.