7 ms·
I once attended an internal presentation while working for the UK's Ministry of Justice. A large number of contraband mobile phones had been confiscated, and a
by glenjamin 3y ago
I once attended an internal presentation while working for the UK's Ministry of Justice.
A large number of contraband mobile phones had been confiscated, and a team performed some data analysis to see what they'd been used for.
The overwhelming conclusion was that the phones had been primarily used to keen in touch with family.
There's also a whole bunch of research that showed that maintaining ties with the outside world while incarcerated led to reduced rates of reoffending (and the inverse was also true - isolation led to increased rates).
Allowing free phone calls in and out of prisons makes a lot of sense both socially and economically.
- immibis 3y agoBut the purpose of the prison system isn't to improve society and economics.
- 39 3y agoThat’s precisely what it’s for. Make take a reflecting break.
- lawn 3y agoFor a well-functioning prison system it is.
- LadyCailin 3y agoThis is an absolutely bizarre take. Even if you’re all for the pure punitive aspect of it, why would you not want to improve society and the economics? Are you Kim Jong Un or something? I’m genuinely confused how any reasonable argument can be made here, regardless on your stance towards the prisoners themselves.
- jghn 3y agoThey didn’t say they support the status quo.
- SteveNuts 3y agoThen they should elaborate on their point because their comment sounds like they do.
- jghn 3y agoI interpreted it as snarking on the current state of affairs. By and large, in the US the point of the prison system is *not* rehabilitation or providing benefit to society. It's about lining the pockets of wealthy people and keeping the downtrodden in that position. And that sucks, but stating it as a matter of fact doesn't mean one supports it.
- SteveNuts 3y agoThat's definitely how I interpreted it also, but the comment definitely buries the lede at least
- kayodelycaon 3y agoThe US is really big on making sure criminals never stop paying for their crimes. Improving society in a way that helps anyone who hasn’t earned it is contrary to the goals way too many voters.
- MPSimmons 3y agoI'm hoping the comment you're replying to was sardonic.
- tyingq 3y agoEven if you're into the pure punishment angle, prolonged isolation is a factory for mental instability. And you're releasing most of these people back into society at some point.
- dangus 3y agoAh, you're thinking of the American prison system. We were talking more about a prison system that is functional and beneficial. Easy mistake to make, I know.
- up2isomorphism 3y agoThere is no logic that a good thing should be free. In fact it should likely cost prisoners something if it is good for them. Just like breakfast is good for you but it is not free.
- hnarn 3y ago“If it’s good for you, it shouldn’t be free” is a very strange hill to die on, even if we weren’t even specifically talking about attempting to rehabilitate criminals.
- up2isomorphism 3y agoCan you find a “shouldn’t“ part in my response?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- AngaraliTurk 3y agoYes, it's implied.
- hn_acker 3y agoIn an earlier comment you wrote: > In fact it should likely cost prisoners something if it is good for them. Which is equivalent to "if it is good for them it should likely cost prisoners something" i.e. "if it is good for them it likely should not be free for prisoners". I'm aware that the hnarn's comment said "you" instead of "prisoners", but the principle of charity leads me to assume that hnarn meant specifically a prisoner rather than any person. And regardless, the answer to the question "Can you find a “shouldn’t“ part in my response?" is yes.
- up2isomorphism 3y ago>“Which is equivalent to "if it is good for them it should likely cost prisoners something" i.e. "if it is good for them it likely should not be free for prisoners".” You will have the same conclusion if there is no “likely” in the sentence, so you are obviously trying to pretend it is not there or you likely need basic logic course. (Don’t ignore likely here again, though)
- mannykannot 3y agoI would guess that there are many cases where it reduces the burden on the prisoner's family - a burden that should never be a purpose of incarceration, and which may lead to follow-on social dysfunction.
- sixothree 3y ago> reduced rates of reoffending Sounds like something bad for business when you run for-profit prisons.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- farhanhubble 3y agoWhile it may improve the outcome for prisoners wouldn't it be abused by criminals at a large scale? In my country at least phones are smuggled by criminals to continue running their enterprises from behind the bars.
- cruffle_duffle 3y agoAccording to whatever study the parent comment cites, most of them are used to contact family. Seems the solution to allow free calls from monitored prison phones is a good compromise.
- UncleMeat 3y agoPrison should be about aggregate improvement of society while minimizing dehumanization. Sure, a drug kingpin might keep running their empire from within prison. But we might buy safer prisons and improved reintegration with this cost.
- voidwtf 3y agoThis is the same type of logic used by police to justify civil forfeiture of cash in the USA. Drug dealers carry a lot of cash because they can't use banks, so anybody carrying a lot of cash must be a drug dealer and the cash must be illegal proceeds from drug dealing. Not only has this logic severely damaged public trust in police, but it's been incrementally extended to seize money and property from many innocent and/or uninvolved people. I'm not saying it will never happen, but we should not be punishing everyone for the misdeeds of the few. We should not be attributing anything to criminal activity that has not yet been proven to be criminal activity.
- SigmundA 3y agoSeems great to allow it through monitored devices for free, you might gather more evidence this way and convict others. That is do everything possible to prevent smuggled non monitored devices so that the only communication is through sanctioned monitored devices. Obviously the right to privacy (4th amendment) is lost in prison among other rights so there shouldn't be any issue with the surveillance.
- hilux 3y agoA lot of what makes sense socially and economically doesn't happen (esp. in the US) when the alternative is a very profitable business, often an oligopoly. E.g. free prison phone calls hurt the >$1B "inmate telephone business." Prisons themselves can be a profitable business, which (if you own a for-profit prison) provides strong incentive for reducing rehabilitation and increasing recidivism.
- jamesTee49 3y agoIncarcerations should be harsh and life-ending. Look at North Korea, they have way less crime than even Tokyo. In comparions to Chicago look like a mess mafia gangland. When you reward the prisoners with a lot of benefits, you simply tell everyone crime pays. The focus should be on expediting justice and ensuring correct justice to be dispense. Prisoners that committed crimes should be left for them to be in miserable states to discourage them to do crime. Reoffending one can be liquidated. I really dont want my tax going to feed this kind of inhumans.