While I find the conversations in here interesting from an economics perspective they are not solutions to the real problem. This is not a function of cost between inmate, provider, and family alone. These phone systems have a real and tangible cost on society as a whole. An enormous body of research [1] showing that offenders with better/more familial contact while incarcerated have vastly lower recidivism rates.
This is literally companies causing harm (and not just economic) harm to societies citizens at large. I respect jlafon's point of view but I can't agree. The fact that a system you create is difficult to adminster should not mean that the cost of dealing with it should be passed along to your 'customers' (gagging as I use that word). When a group of people chooses to put others in a position of limited power they have a responsibility to protect them from harm. Treating prisoners as a revenue stream at all is immoral and I believe unconstitutional. The argument that they should pay or do anything to contribute to their imprisonment is vapid and ugly. If we aren't willing to shoulder the burden of imprisoning them then we shouldn't do it. We absolutely should not be charging them or their families usury amounts of money to satisfy rules and situations we created.
Letting prisoners use the phone is labor intensive? Why? because you created rules and a system where it is. To spin it as more complicated or containing 'reasons' is post hoc justification nonsense and should be treated as such.
Reading your reference quickly, what stuck out to me is whether the prisoners have already existing better relationships with family prior to incarceration, leading to more regular communication while in prison, and greater integration with family and society after release resulting in lower recidivism. Those who aren't staying in touch may have gone into prison without ongoing family relationships, reduced connections to society, and later, increased risk of recidivism. Perhaps your link addressed that, I didn't notice it though.
I think the system is screwed, don't get me wrong, but the reference may be attributing a surface level effect (allowed to make calls) to a more latent thing (already have decent integration with family and society).
Why have we decided that the way to treat criminals is to systematically destroy their social support system for profit? This sounds like a terrible idea, and a direction that doesn't seem to be improving the American prison system in the least.
Because American voters--collectively, not individually--are bad people. Our criminal justice system, moreso than other parts of our government, is responsive to the will of the people. And the current state of it is a product of the profound moral failure on the part of the populace.
If you'd rather blame for-profit prisons, think about this. How far removed are we from lynchings, throwing black people into jail on zero evidence, etc? There were no for-profit prisons when states were systematically abusing the rights of the accused--particularly minorities, just 40-50 years ago.
A lot of people feel uncomfortable standing up for criminals, so it's easy to prey on them. The problem is when we put them in a position where their only way out is to commit more crimes.
It is easy to abuse the weak, and there are few weaker than criminals. They have lost their freedom, and acquired an indelible stain on their reputation that will follow them through life, considerably reducing their economic value. They are weak socially, weak economically, and (to many) weak morally.
That's why this story is so important, and incredible: that one of the weakest of us fought a petty injustice, (that is in aggregate is a great injustice), and won. That's positive; but it should make us wonder what other petty injustices are being foisted on the weak. And what other policy changes are being made to weaken the targets.
> Why have we decided that the way to treat criminals is to systematically destroy their social support system for profit?
Because:
(1) There is a lobby with a lot to gain, and therefore an intense incentive to lobby for it.
(2) For most citizens, prisoners are at best "out of sight, out of mind", and at worst a subject of negative emotional attachment, so harms to them are either discounted or even seen as deserved.
(3) For the citizens directly harmed, they are already disenfranchised.
It's real-world capitalism thought through to the end. You can monetize any service to anyone, even more so when there is a lack of a proper free market in certain niches.
Thanks for sharing. I'm glad this is staying on our radar lately.
There was another link discussed here recently (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11648361) about how these exorbitant prison phone calls are being replaced with video calls- and ONLY video calls. In the linked article we have this quote: The alternative to high rates isn’t lower rates, the association has suggested — the alternative is that phone calls in jails will be done away with entirely. "Absent these commissions," association president Larry D. Amerson wrote in a comment to the FCC, "counties would need to either increase taxes for the system or jails could potentially cease to provide inmates with this service." So either continue to support this monopoly, or don't speak to or see your brother/cousin/mom in jail at all.
Here in New Jersey where I live, as of yesterday you can no longer visit an inmate in a couple of our prisons, in person. Instead, you can pay Securus for a video connection to the inmate you'd like to speak with. I think if more people who were not directly connected to the System via a friend, family member, or personal experience were aware of what's going on, they would be appalled. Instead we conveniently pretend this stuff isn't happening.
From the linked article: [Securus'] Smith defended his company’s profits on many of the same grounds other inmate phone companies do. The contracts, he says, are a source of funds for crucial corrections services like health care. "It’s really a public policy issue," Smith says. Securus also provides security services, recording calls sent through its system and intervening to break up any illegal plots that it detects. "We really feel like we perform kind of a noble service for society," he says.
What he's not saying is that local municipalities can also get a kickback from the money paid to contact prisoners. So not only does it fund healthcare within the prison system (which of course are also increasingly privatized, so how much of that money do you think can be claimed as profit by the company running the prison), but to fix potholes etc in the local town.. on paper, at least.
What I wish these stories left me with is what to do next. Who do I call, petition, or vote for to get this changed?
Assuming your network is as socially enlightened as you, I would try to figure out if this is happening in your state and contact local government officials about your concerns. Done in a group, it could be a fun social activity to go to a town hall meeting to voice your concerns in public. Afterwards, reward yourselves with a drink for getting out of the house to show your support for good government.
If you give out monopolies, then this is what happens. Here's a simple idea to fix this: capitalism.
Mandate at least two providers at each prison and let them charge whatever they want. Let them race to the bottom so you get the same cheap voip rates the rest of the country has access to.
Oh and if they collude on pricing, throw the management in the same prison.
I bet they'd also start competing on the features the prison cares about too. Like tracking who's calling who, speech to text transcripts, and service levels.
Problem with this approach is that it doesn't allow for the cronyism that is ripe in this type of industry.
N providers will always be a problem for the consumer, if N is fixed. To get providers to compete, you need not only have many of them, but you need to open the market to new players. The lower the barrier to entry ("disruption"), the higher the incentive for incumbents to stay on top of their game.
Oddly enough, your statements are directly contradicted by the story. It was under a monopoly -- a national monoply, regulated closely by the federal government -- that the system was, in this case, far better:
"AT&T was the exclusive service provider in the industry, and costs for inmates were comparable for similar services outside. But in the 1980s, an antitrust agreement pulled the Bell System apart. Meanwhile, America’s incarceration rate was booming, driven by the war on drugs and more stringent sentencing guidelines.
"With AT&T in pieces, upstart phone providers saw dollar signs in the bevy of new "customers" waiting to be served. First, other major telecommunications companies, such as MCI and Sprint, moved in. Then came the specialists — dedicated outfits, like Pay Tel Communications and Global TelLink, willing to appeal to the specific needs of the corrections industry. Providing communications to a literally captive audience was highly profitable, and as these companies grew, they popularized a new kind of contract with local governments. These agreements hinged on an idea formally known as the "site commission contract," though critics often describe them using another word: kickback."
"Free market" doesn't by itself sprinkle Magickal Pixiy Duste over all problems and make them go away. A guy wrote a long book about this once, and how unregulated laissez-faire markets tended strongly to special interests and plutonomy. He was named Smith, title is An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations*. Recommended reading.
While I agree with the ideas you are expressing, I just want to amend your opening:
> If you give out monopolies, then this is what happens. Here's a simple idea to fix this: COMPETITION.
Monopolies aren't some market externality that only occur outside of capitalism (private ownership of the means of production).
Don't mean to split semantic hairs, but I just don't want to perpetuate the mainstream editorializing of "capitalism" into a buzz word meaning something akin to "for private corporations" and that privatization is always better for the market and society.
You're making some flawed assumptions. The prison wants the cash -- these are revenue contracts that generate a lot of money.
The video stuff nets money for the prison operator as and has other benefits. They pull the fiber to the prison in nowhere vile using erate funds for the "schools" in the prison.
Our local jail charges for personal visitation, you get 2 visits per week free but can pay a "nominal" fee to stream additional conversations over the Web. Let's just say that fee was ridiculous. I can't find the link for it was $30 for 15 minutes I think.
As a former foster parent that was just trying to connect with the birth parents while they awaited trial, yeah those prices suck.
But hey, who cares about people accused of crimes, right? That's the American way.
Some jails have tried to eliminate all in-person visitation entirely and move to a system where you'd still have to physically go to a jail, but they'd use video streaming, and naturally charge you for the "service."
Their stated reasoning is, drugs, or similar. Even though prisoners are already searched after the visitation, and guards are a common conduit for illegal drugs in jail.
The whole criminal justify industry in the US is sick. Seriously needs a top to bottom shakeup.
First of all, I'm not defending what is obviously predatory. However, there is more involved then what you might think at first glance. Right or wrong, correctional facilities have reasons to discourage phone calls (context: I put myself through college working at a maximum security prison). Calls are supposed to be monitored (usually done manually) to prevent criminal business from being done on prison phones - and there are never enough people to listen to all calls. There are never enough phones either, which frequently causes tension between inmates using phones and those waiting for them. In higher security levels phones are labor intensive. An officer has to escort a (potentially dangerous) person from their cell to the phone, and stand there for the duration of the call. And to the article's point, it's such a problem that prepaid phone cards are a form of currency on the inside.
> Calls are supposed to be monitored (usually done manually) to prevent criminal business from being done on prison phones - and there are never enough people to listen to all calls.
At $1/minute sorts of rates, it should be possible to pay several people to listen to a call.
Calls are supposed to be monitored (usually done manually) to prevent criminal business [...] In higher security levels phones are labor intensive. An officer has to escort [...] from their cell to the phone, and stand there for the duration of the call.
Sounds like part of the solution is right there, at least in higher security prisons, which is to have the escort also monitor the call. Record all calls regardless and perform spot-audits so that any potential collusion between inmates, outsiders and escorts can be eliminated or minimized. A higher percentage of spot-audits should be carried out on repeat offenders and lower percentage on inmates associated with minor crimes - risk can be assessed with a couple of conditional equations. Advise inmates and staff of monitoring system to prevent collusion from forming in the first place.
They record the phone calls. It seems that if there was an incident it is trivial to review phone calls and bring evidence to bear against the guilty parties.
This is because the people running the show have created a problem. Let business be done. Let all prisoners know all phone calls are recorded and may be monitored at any time. And record all of them. Then get a company that does this sort of thing to transcribe them all. Then do a search on all the text for keywords that might indicate problems or send the text to India to be read. That's it. The rest, well you know who they are calling, those are potential people to investigate... send those to the NSA or the police.
Or just let illegal business be done. What's the worst that could happen. Lots of criminals outside of bars too.
Also you could let the non-violent ones do whatever and only watch the violent ones. It just depends on whether or not you have a problem solving attitude or a problem creating one. It seems the prison industrial complex creates problems and then spends lots of money to solve them, money of prisoner's families who are already broke and belong to low income households.
Monitor calls: How can this be an issue when we have the NSA able to snoop on all the worlds' phone calls and mine them for content.
Apple Siri has the ability to translate spoken word to text.
The point is that there is lots of technology that can do a first pass filter on phone calls.
It doesn't need to be manual.
Additionally, this is ignoring the reality that cell phones are smuggled into prisons as well. Any coordinated criminal activity doesn't need to use a land line that is monitored - just use a smuggled cell phone. ( http://fusion.net/story/41931/inside-the-prison-systems-illi... )
Is there any evidence that criminals conduct more criminal activity during their prison sentence than the general populace? If there isn't any, then either you should be monitoring all citizen calls, or get rid of this arbitrary punishment for criminals. If there is such evidence, is the difference substantial enough to warrant the surveillance?
I think this is a very unique article from a web design perspective. The counter on the left hand side, indicating the time you've been reading, and how much your charges would be if you spent that time on the phone is genius. It really hammers in the point of how unethical this practice is.
What a horrible thing to do to innocent American families. Bad enough their loved ones have fucked up mightily enough to be incarcerated but now the state gouges the hell out them just to talk to each other.
This is not how a government should treat its people.
Think what a thrashing, including calling out the founders and management, companies like uBeam and Theranos get here. Ghouls like prison telcos are 100X worse. Where do we get people who run these operations? Who are they and what makes them tick?
I shared an office with a guy who did a couple years for white collar crime. He got out and started a business that placed local voip numbers near prisons then patched the calls through to long distance numbers. He charged way less than the prisons were charging for long distance calls.
He was making a ton of money last I talked to him.
Seems most of mankind's daily labors are inclined toward predatory monopoly these days; either creating their own or wage-slaving toward preserving another's. One laughs with today's comedians as they parody the manners of yesteryear, those musty, pinkies-out concepts of gentlemen and gentlewomen, that gullible faith in the golden rule, yet one's teeth are soon sent gnashing when those many insurances which buttress men's insolence are found to be effected by the same selfish, hard-hearted men as oneself.
Rather than Thoreau's "quiet desperation", the masses instead seem bent toward lives of "clawing desperation".
[+] [-] avs733|9 years ago|reply
This is literally companies causing harm (and not just economic) harm to societies citizens at large. I respect jlafon's point of view but I can't agree. The fact that a system you create is difficult to adminster should not mean that the cost of dealing with it should be passed along to your 'customers' (gagging as I use that word). When a group of people chooses to put others in a position of limited power they have a responsibility to protect them from harm. Treating prisoners as a revenue stream at all is immoral and I believe unconstitutional. The argument that they should pay or do anything to contribute to their imprisonment is vapid and ugly. If we aren't willing to shoulder the burden of imprisoning them then we shouldn't do it. We absolutely should not be charging them or their families usury amounts of money to satisfy rules and situations we created.
Letting prisoners use the phone is labor intensive? Why? because you created rules and a system where it is. To spin it as more complicated or containing 'reasons' is post hoc justification nonsense and should be treated as such.
[1] Summarized here: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/apr/15/lowering-re...
[+] [-] superuser2|9 years ago|reply
I agree that it's immoral, but it's explicitly, unambiguously Constitutional.
[+] [-] vkou|9 years ago|reply
Doubtful. The Constitution makes it clear that slavery is illegal... Except in the case of prisoners.
If you can subject prisoners to forced labor, gouging them on phone calls seems a small step.
[+] [-] jupiter90000|9 years ago|reply
I think the system is screwed, don't get me wrong, but the reference may be attributing a surface level effect (allowed to make calls) to a more latent thing (already have decent integration with family and society).
[+] [-] c3534l|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|9 years ago|reply
If you'd rather blame for-profit prisons, think about this. How far removed are we from lynchings, throwing black people into jail on zero evidence, etc? There were no for-profit prisons when states were systematically abusing the rights of the accused--particularly minorities, just 40-50 years ago.
[+] [-] jmcgough|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] javajosh|9 years ago|reply
That's why this story is so important, and incredible: that one of the weakest of us fought a petty injustice, (that is in aggregate is a great injustice), and won. That's positive; but it should make us wonder what other petty injustices are being foisted on the weak. And what other policy changes are being made to weaken the targets.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|9 years ago|reply
Because:
(1) There is a lobby with a lot to gain, and therefore an intense incentive to lobby for it.
(2) For most citizens, prisoners are at best "out of sight, out of mind", and at worst a subject of negative emotional attachment, so harms to them are either discounted or even seen as deserved.
(3) For the citizens directly harmed, they are already disenfranchised.
[+] [-] _ak|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ndespres|9 years ago|reply
There was another link discussed here recently (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11648361) about how these exorbitant prison phone calls are being replaced with video calls- and ONLY video calls. In the linked article we have this quote: The alternative to high rates isn’t lower rates, the association has suggested — the alternative is that phone calls in jails will be done away with entirely. "Absent these commissions," association president Larry D. Amerson wrote in a comment to the FCC, "counties would need to either increase taxes for the system or jails could potentially cease to provide inmates with this service." So either continue to support this monopoly, or don't speak to or see your brother/cousin/mom in jail at all.
Here in New Jersey where I live, as of yesterday you can no longer visit an inmate in a couple of our prisons, in person. Instead, you can pay Securus for a video connection to the inmate you'd like to speak with. I think if more people who were not directly connected to the System via a friend, family member, or personal experience were aware of what's going on, they would be appalled. Instead we conveniently pretend this stuff isn't happening.
From the linked article: [Securus'] Smith defended his company’s profits on many of the same grounds other inmate phone companies do. The contracts, he says, are a source of funds for crucial corrections services like health care. "It’s really a public policy issue," Smith says. Securus also provides security services, recording calls sent through its system and intervening to break up any illegal plots that it detects. "We really feel like we perform kind of a noble service for society," he says.
What he's not saying is that local municipalities can also get a kickback from the money paid to contact prisoners. So not only does it fund healthcare within the prison system (which of course are also increasingly privatized, so how much of that money do you think can be claimed as profit by the company running the prison), but to fix potholes etc in the local town.. on paper, at least.
What I wish these stories left me with is what to do next. Who do I call, petition, or vote for to get this changed?
[+] [-] nefitty|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koolba|9 years ago|reply
Mandate at least two providers at each prison and let them charge whatever they want. Let them race to the bottom so you get the same cheap voip rates the rest of the country has access to.
Oh and if they collude on pricing, throw the management in the same prison.
I bet they'd also start competing on the features the prison cares about too. Like tracking who's calling who, speech to text transcripts, and service levels.
Problem with this approach is that it doesn't allow for the cronyism that is ripe in this type of industry.
[+] [-] nothrabannosir|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dredmorbius|9 years ago|reply
"AT&T was the exclusive service provider in the industry, and costs for inmates were comparable for similar services outside. But in the 1980s, an antitrust agreement pulled the Bell System apart. Meanwhile, America’s incarceration rate was booming, driven by the war on drugs and more stringent sentencing guidelines.
"With AT&T in pieces, upstart phone providers saw dollar signs in the bevy of new "customers" waiting to be served. First, other major telecommunications companies, such as MCI and Sprint, moved in. Then came the specialists — dedicated outfits, like Pay Tel Communications and Global TelLink, willing to appeal to the specific needs of the corrections industry. Providing communications to a literally captive audience was highly profitable, and as these companies grew, they popularized a new kind of contract with local governments. These agreements hinged on an idea formally known as the "site commission contract," though critics often describe them using another word: kickback."
"Free market" doesn't by itself sprinkle Magickal Pixiy Duste over all problems and make them go away. A guy wrote a long book about this once, and how unregulated laissez-faire markets tended strongly to special interests and plutonomy. He was named Smith, title is An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations*. Recommended reading.
[+] [-] deelowe|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eevilspock|9 years ago|reply
I believe you meant "a free market".
Please let's stop equating "capitalism" with "free markets"; They are not one-in-the-same, and there are serious problems with the former.
[+] [-] gshulegaard|9 years ago|reply
> If you give out monopolies, then this is what happens. Here's a simple idea to fix this: COMPETITION.
Monopolies aren't some market externality that only occur outside of capitalism (private ownership of the means of production).
Don't mean to split semantic hairs, but I just don't want to perpetuate the mainstream editorializing of "capitalism" into a buzz word meaning something akin to "for private corporations" and that privatization is always better for the market and society.
[+] [-] Spooky23|9 years ago|reply
The video stuff nets money for the prison operator as and has other benefits. They pull the fiber to the prison in nowhere vile using erate funds for the "schools" in the prison.
[+] [-] netcan|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ThomPete|9 years ago|reply
With regards to cellphones though of course capitalism is the answer there.
[+] [-] hermannj314|9 years ago|reply
As a former foster parent that was just trying to connect with the birth parents while they awaited trial, yeah those prices suck.
But hey, who cares about people accused of crimes, right? That's the American way.
[+] [-] Someone1234|9 years ago|reply
Their stated reasoning is, drugs, or similar. Even though prisoners are already searched after the visitation, and guards are a common conduit for illegal drugs in jail.
The whole criminal justify industry in the US is sick. Seriously needs a top to bottom shakeup.
[+] [-] jlafon|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceejayoz|9 years ago|reply
At $1/minute sorts of rates, it should be possible to pay several people to listen to a call.
[+] [-] icanhackit|9 years ago|reply
Sounds like part of the solution is right there, at least in higher security prisons, which is to have the escort also monitor the call. Record all calls regardless and perform spot-audits so that any potential collusion between inmates, outsiders and escorts can be eliminated or minimized. A higher percentage of spot-audits should be carried out on repeat offenders and lower percentage on inmates associated with minor crimes - risk can be assessed with a couple of conditional equations. Advise inmates and staff of monitoring system to prevent collusion from forming in the first place.
[+] [-] chillwaves|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] x5n1|9 years ago|reply
Or just let illegal business be done. What's the worst that could happen. Lots of criminals outside of bars too.
Also you could let the non-violent ones do whatever and only watch the violent ones. It just depends on whether or not you have a problem solving attitude or a problem creating one. It seems the prison industrial complex creates problems and then spends lots of money to solve them, money of prisoner's families who are already broke and belong to low income households.
[+] [-] pm24601|9 years ago|reply
Apple Siri has the ability to translate spoken word to text.
The point is that there is lots of technology that can do a first pass filter on phone calls.
It doesn't need to be manual.
Additionally, this is ignoring the reality that cell phones are smuggled into prisons as well. Any coordinated criminal activity doesn't need to use a land line that is monitored - just use a smuggled cell phone. ( http://fusion.net/story/41931/inside-the-prison-systems-illi... )
[+] [-] netcan|9 years ago|reply
Why not just limit duration?
[+] [-] Sacho|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] electic|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skuunk1|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbobby|9 years ago|reply
This is not how a government should treat its people.
[+] [-] Overtonwindow|9 years ago|reply
http://www.businessinsider.com/video-visitation-is-ending-in...
[+] [-] Zigurd|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mason55|9 years ago|reply
He was making a ton of money last I talked to him.
[+] [-] mynameisnoone|9 years ago|reply
EDIT: VICE did a piece in 2014 on people getting locked up because they could not pay their parole fees. Yes, debtors' prison, where parolees pay (or not) for the privilege of freedom. https://news.vice.com/article/debtors-prisons-are-taking-the...
[+] [-] njloof|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mapt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kingmanaz|9 years ago|reply
Rather than Thoreau's "quiet desperation", the masses instead seem bent toward lives of "clawing desperation".
[+] [-] venomsnake|9 years ago|reply
Hell - give them a free WoW or LoL accounts and they may forget to come out of prison once their term is over.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] martin1975|9 years ago|reply