4 ms·

Jails banned visits in "quid pro quo" with prison phone companies, lawsuits say

107 points by LinuxBender 3y ago

Reubend 3y ago
Disgusting. I'm not sure to what extend this kind of behavior is illegal, but it's certainly should be.
- mplewis 3y ago
  Private prisons should be illegal.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Private prison communications companies should be illegal. If you remove the profit motive, you disincentivize the poor behavior between unaccountable law enforcement and for profit orgs. https://www.ameelio.org/ https://www.ameelio.org/ https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=ameelio&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39376264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39376264
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    I wonder if better incentive design could turn them into something very good. For example how would things look if they got only paid if the inmates don't re-offend after release?
    - rjbwork 3y ago
      Would almost certainly be better. Incentives drive almost all economic behavior. The way in which our institutions repeatedly fail to align incentives with the well being of society is tragic and astounding.
    - kerkeslager 3y ago
      The far-reaching implication of Goodhart's Law[1] is that incentives are inherently hackable. Let's say we follow your proposed incentives: how do we, as a company, prevent inmates from re-offending after release? Well, let's just not release any but the prisoners who are least likely to re-offend! No need to waste funds on expensive rehabilitation: just come up with an accurate means of estimating a convict's chances of re-offending, and accuse them of bad behavior so they never make parole. Problem solved! And sure, I'm not expecting you to draft a whole incentive structure in an HN post, but any incentive structure that anyone could come up with is going to have holes like that. Fundamentally, the problem is not that incentives are wrong, it's that some people are only incentivized by money, and no matter what conditions we put between them and money, it's not going to be the same as being incentivized by helping people. People who are only incentivized by money are not good people and we need to stop naively pretending that's fixable with tweaks to the incentive structure. As long as there is money to be made in controlling human rights, the fox is in charge of the henhouse. We need to take money out of situations like this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
      - ajmurmann 3y ago
        I think you are applying Goodhearts law both too broadly and not broadly enough at the same time. IMO there is no way being away from the law with it without money being involved. It equally applies in any bureaucratic system where goals get set and achieving them gives you power or any other benefit. If humans are to take action together over a prolonged time the law is gonna get in your way. The best way to mitigate this is to avoid proxy-metrics and measure accomplishing the actual goal. Another issue is that as someone smarter than me said who was quoted by Russ Roberts on econtalk: You are not allowed to ask for better people. The right system must make the wrong people do the right thing. To come back to our concrete subject at hand: Don't penalize the penal institution for reoffense, but reward them if former inmates stay out of jail. I'd make the ongoing pay for inmates being in jail just low enough to not be profitable with performance bonuses set at several intervals after the inmates were released and didn't mess up again. This somewhat opens the door for releasing inmates early. I'd need to contemplate and discuss with experts on how early released currently gets decided on to come up with a good way to address this, but it seems like there are several good-sounding options. This even might be a non-issue if the increased likelihood of a future bonus outweighs the cost of the inmate staying longer in prison.
  - burkaman 3y ago
    You're right, but the jails in this particular case are public.
Terr_ 3y ago
Given the prices on prison phone calls in many state, I have no problem believing this. The terrible thing is that not only are the prices predatory, but they arguably harm rehabilitation, since family contact is associated with better (i.e. lower) recidivism rates.
- thewildginger 3y ago
  It adds to the isolation, a common adjustment limiting factor. This is pretty evil.
  - klipt 3y ago
    For profit prisons are an outright abomination.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  Are prisoners not allowed to send and receive letters in the mail? That seems like a way around the phone call scam.
  - wolrah 3y ago
    > Are prisoners not allowed to send and receive letters in the mail? That seems like a way around the phone call scam. Yes, writing letters, definitely a reasonable alternative to phone calls, no concerns about timeliness and even delivery. Not to mention that a significant portion of prisoners are illiterate or very weakly literate. I work in the telecom industry and the the prison phone scam drive me absolutely nuts because I know the actual costs so well. I could easily and profitably provide a system at a fraction of the costs these ripoff vendors charge, but of course then there would be nothing to split with the prison, the state, etc.
  - mihaic 3y ago
    While I understand you mean well, the option of writing a letter in 2024 seems more like "let them eat cake". Hearing the voice of a loved one, and especially seing them has a different effect on people.
Sporktacular 3y ago
[flagged]
aussieguy1234 3y ago
Sounds like the people who ran this should be the ones in prison.
molticrystal 3y ago
I understand jailed individuals should have some restrictions to ensure they do not get access to contraband or spend excessive time in visitation instead of serving their sentence, and visitors should comply with those. But why are free people being punished and restricted so much when they choose to interact with people in jail? It isn't like people in jail make enough money to pay for these phone calls, it is friends and family that have to pay the bills. This is even worse when the interactions are with people who have yet to be convicted, and are supposedly presumed innocent in the eyes of the law, it certainly doesn't seem that way.

107 points by LinuxBender 3y ago

Reubend 3y ago

Disgusting. I'm not sure to what extend this kind of behavior is illegal, but it's certainly should be.

mplewis 3y ago
Private prisons should be illegal.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Private prison communications companies should be illegal. If you remove the profit motive, you disincentivize the poor behavior between unaccountable law enforcement and for profit orgs. https://www.ameelio.org/ https://www.ameelio.org/ https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=ameelio&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39376264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39376264
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  I wonder if better incentive design could turn them into something very good. For example how would things look if they got only paid if the inmates don't re-offend after release?
  - rjbwork 3y ago
    Would almost certainly be better. Incentives drive almost all economic behavior. The way in which our institutions repeatedly fail to align incentives with the well being of society is tragic and astounding.
  - kerkeslager 3y ago
    The far-reaching implication of Goodhart's Law[1] is that incentives are inherently hackable. Let's say we follow your proposed incentives: how do we, as a company, prevent inmates from re-offending after release? Well, let's just not release any but the prisoners who are least likely to re-offend! No need to waste funds on expensive rehabilitation: just come up with an accurate means of estimating a convict's chances of re-offending, and accuse them of bad behavior so they never make parole. Problem solved! And sure, I'm not expecting you to draft a whole incentive structure in an HN post, but any incentive structure that anyone could come up with is going to have holes like that. Fundamentally, the problem is not that incentives are wrong, it's that some people are only incentivized by money, and no matter what conditions we put between them and money, it's not going to be the same as being incentivized by helping people. People who are only incentivized by money are not good people and we need to stop naively pretending that's fixable with tweaks to the incentive structure. As long as there is money to be made in controlling human rights, the fox is in charge of the henhouse. We need to take money out of situations like this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
    - ajmurmann 3y ago
      I think you are applying Goodhearts law both too broadly and not broadly enough at the same time. IMO there is no way being away from the law with it without money being involved. It equally applies in any bureaucratic system where goals get set and achieving them gives you power or any other benefit. If humans are to take action together over a prolonged time the law is gonna get in your way. The best way to mitigate this is to avoid proxy-metrics and measure accomplishing the actual goal. Another issue is that as someone smarter than me said who was quoted by Russ Roberts on econtalk: You are not allowed to ask for better people. The right system must make the wrong people do the right thing. To come back to our concrete subject at hand: Don't penalize the penal institution for reoffense, but reward them if former inmates stay out of jail. I'd make the ongoing pay for inmates being in jail just low enough to not be profitable with performance bonuses set at several intervals after the inmates were released and didn't mess up again. This somewhat opens the door for releasing inmates early. I'd need to contemplate and discuss with experts on how early released currently gets decided on to come up with a good way to address this, but it seems like there are several good-sounding options. This even might be a non-issue if the increased likelihood of a future bonus outweighs the cost of the inmate staying longer in prison.
- burkaman 3y ago
  You're right, but the jails in this particular case are public.

Terr_ 3y ago

Given the prices on prison phone calls in many state, I have no problem believing this. The terrible thing is that not only are the prices predatory, but they arguably harm rehabilitation, since family contact is associated with better (i.e. lower) recidivism rates.

thewildginger 3y ago
It adds to the isolation, a common adjustment limiting factor. This is pretty evil.
- klipt 3y ago
  For profit prisons are an outright abomination.
SoftTalker 3y ago
Are prisoners not allowed to send and receive letters in the mail? That seems like a way around the phone call scam.
- wolrah 3y ago
  > Are prisoners not allowed to send and receive letters in the mail? That seems like a way around the phone call scam. Yes, writing letters, definitely a reasonable alternative to phone calls, no concerns about timeliness and even delivery. Not to mention that a significant portion of prisoners are illiterate or very weakly literate. I work in the telecom industry and the the prison phone scam drive me absolutely nuts because I know the actual costs so well. I could easily and profitably provide a system at a fraction of the costs these ripoff vendors charge, but of course then there would be nothing to split with the prison, the state, etc.
- mihaic 3y ago
  While I understand you mean well, the option of writing a letter in 2024 seems more like "let them eat cake". Hearing the voice of a loved one, and especially seing them has a different effect on people.

Sporktacular 3y ago

[flagged]

aussieguy1234 3y ago

Sounds like the people who ran this should be the ones in prison.

molticrystal 3y ago

I understand jailed individuals should have some restrictions to ensure they do not get access to contraband or spend excessive time in visitation instead of serving their sentence, and visitors should comply with those. But why are free people being punished and restricted so much when they choose to interact with people in jail? It isn't like people in jail make enough money to pay for these phone calls, it is friends and family that have to pay the bills. This is even worse when the interactions are with people who have yet to be convicted, and are supposedly presumed innocent in the eyes of the law, it certainly doesn't seem that way.