Slashdot Mirror


Prison Cell Phone Smuggling Out of Control

Hugh Pickens writes writes "KCRA reports that the number of contraband cell phones discovered in California state prisons has exploded as prison guards, staff and vendors are cashing in on smuggled phones that can fetch between $200 and $800. Although the large majority of inmates are using the phones to stay in contact with loved ones, there have been documented cases of escape attempts, drug deals and conference calls coordinated via smuggled cell phones. 'The potential is there for the worst kind of activity,' says Folsom Prison Warden Rick Hill. Even Charles Manson has been caught with a cellphone smuggled to him. 'We know the problem is out of control,' says State Senator Alex Padilla, who has proposed making such smuggling illegal in hopes of stopping the continued rise of contraband cell phones in prison."

24 of 428 comments (clear)

  1. Proposed? by Coy0t3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wait... does this mean that it's not illegal to smuggle certain things into prisons?

    --
    Maybe you'll return to Minagua, You could go unnoticed in such a place. -FZ
    1. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wait... does this mean that it's not illegal to smuggle certain things into prisons?

      They can't keep cell phones and other items too, like drugs out of prisons. Out of PRISONS. Yet we really think we can have a War on (some) Drugs applied to the general population. Idiocy. Unlike a cell phone, drugs have a flexible shape, don't broadcast electromagnetic radiation, and don't have an attached account with somebody's name on it.

    2. Re:Proposed? by mellon · · Score: 4, Informative

      You could RTFA... :)

      It's not illegal to possess cell phones or bring them into California prisons, although it is illegal for federal prisons.

    3. Re:Proposed? by radtea · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps the legislation is upping the category and/or the penalty.

      I wonder why they would do that, given the known lack of correlation between the harshness of penalties and the occurence of crimes.

      Texas, for example, has one of the highest murder rates in the US, and also has extremely harsh penalties, including the frequent use of killing convicted murderers.

      North Dakota, in contrast, has one of the lowest murder rates in the US, and has never employed the practice of killing convicted murderers.

      I don't know what the relevant difference is between Texas and North Dakota, but given the murder rates are anti-correlated with the harshness of the penalties it seems unlikely that the two are related at all. There is quite a bit of research to back this notion up, that after a certain point the marginal decline in a criminal behaviour for a marginal increase in penalty decreases, a fact that should come as no suprise to anyone who has been paying attention to ecnomics for, say, the past 200 years. The law of diminishing returns is a pretty fundamental result of human preference functions.

      Now it may be that in the present case there are data to suggest that the point of diminishing returns has not been met with regard to cell phone smuggling in prisons, but the very first question that should be asked of people proposing legal changes of this kind is, "Where are the data to show that this new and harsher law will result in a reduction in the penalized behaviour sufficient to justify the change?"

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    4. Re:Proposed? by yodleboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i'd think population and density has something to do with it...

      Population (2009 est)
      Texas - 24,782,302
      North Dakota - 646,844

      Density - Persons per sq mile (2000 est)
      Texas - 79.6
      North Dakota - 9.3

      Dallas has 2x the population of North Dakota. More people, closer together, more chance for crime. Texas also has many more people below the poverty level. src: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

  2. Great idea! by sudnshok · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sure legislation will fix the problem... after all, inmates are in jail because they FOLLOW laws! Politicians are morons.

    --
    People who say "money does not buy happiness" are just people without money trying to make themselves feel better.
  3. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by dougmc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Cell phone jammers are illegal. Federal law, state law can't override it.

    Granted, the law could be changed (with an exception added for cell phone jammers in jails), but it hasn't happened yet. It might soon, if there's enough of a cry out for it.

  4. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why not just install cell phone jammers in all prisons?

    Because that would be a logical, one-shot solution that would end the problem. That's no good for a politician. They want an ongoing issue they can pull out from time to time, whenever they need a distraction. There's little profit for your buddies and political capital for yourself from solving problems; there's lots to be made from prolonging them.

    They'll integrate the prison guards into the DHS and hire thousands more of them to look for cell phones before they'll do something as simple and effective as installing jammers.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  5. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Jammers? But that'll make them use other methods of communications which may be harder to tap, intercept or block on demand.

    Why don't they just install cellphone towers specifically for prisons ;). If you do it right, the phones will always use your towers in preference to others.

    If there are pesky laws against this maybe you could get away by having some "fine print" which "informs" the prisoners (who are unlikely to read it) that they are not allowed to use cellphones in the prison, and if they do, the comms may be tapped or even modified as the prison sees fit.

    When opportunity knocks stop complaining about the noise.

    --
  6. 8th Amendment by Darth_brooks · · Score: 5, Funny

    "there have been documented cases of escape attempts, drug deals and conference calls coordinated via smuggled cell phones."

    Not conference calls! Anything but that! Isn't it bad enough that they're in jail? Now they're being subjected to conference calls. That is surely a violation of an inmate's rights against cruel and unusual punishment.

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    1. Re:8th Amendment by phreakmonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not conference calls! Anything but that! Isn't it bad enough that they're in jail? Now they're being subjected to conference calls. That is surely a violatin of an inmate's rights against cruel and unusual punishment.

      I thought the same thing! I imagined this tough, tattoo-decorated guy on his smuggled cellphone, hunching down behind the cot so as not to be obvious...

      [Boop-beep!]
      "Hello, who just joined?"
      "Uhh, this is Tommy 'The Blade', on the call..."

    2. Re:8th Amendment by Darth_brooks · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Hi Tommy, we're just waiting for a few more people to join."

      "I've got time......"

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
  7. Re:A "problem?" by MaggieL · · Score: 4, Informative

    A guard caught with a cell phone gets administrative punishment under union rules. A guard caught with drugs goes down for a felony and loses his job.

    --
    -=Maggie Leber=-
  8. A better solution ... by dougmc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stop screwing prisoners who try to use the prison phone to contact loved ones.

    Prisons have been seeing their phones as a profit center lately, charging a dollar per minute or more to contact loved ones. And loved ones can't call the prisoner -- the prisoner has to make the call. And often they can't call cell phones, only land lines -- but not everybody has a land line any more.

    Make the prices more reasonable, drop the "no cell phones" thing, and have some way for people to call the prisoners (or at least tell them to call home beyond sending them a letter) and the demand for cell phones will drop.

    Beyond that, simply get a scanner that detects the frequencies used by cell phones, install a few of them around the prison, and when they go off if the system is properly designed it could tell a guard immediately and tell them approximately where the phone is in the jail.

    1. Re:A better solution ... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I used to work for a telephone company, calling people who had rang up too many charges. Half the time, the recipient was grateful to be blocked, as her husband/boyfriend in prison called her incessantly, as well as racked up hundreds of dollars in collect telephone call fees.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  9. Deregulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A thought:

    Stop making it difficult and expensive for inmates to make regular phone calls. Then the only people left wanting cell phones will be those who want it for criminal activities, which will make your investigations more effective (even if they are successful less often).

    In addition, though I'm no economist, I have to wonder if that wouldn't cause the remaining cell phone prices to go up, hopefully out of the accessibility range of at least a few people who would use them for criminal purposes (discounting the idea that contacting your family in a manner not approved by the prison might be illegal).

    That's the part I care about. Now, the rant:

    As someone living in the U.S., I think we need a dialogue on what we believe prison should be *for*, especially if there's some data to back up various methods in light of our desired goals. For example, we know that there is a high rate of re-offence among people who have been in prison. How does restricting contact among family and friends affect that? Does it prevent the inmate from seeking connections anywhere but among fellow criminals? Does having access raise people's sense of injustice and make them more likely to re-offend? Is there an interaction between this and some other social factor?

    This dialogue needs to extend to treatment of prisoners. What do we really want the outcome to be? Is it overall better for our society to focus on discouraging people to go to prison, rehabilitation once they are there, or a combination (and in what proportions?).

    Perhaps most importantly, the dialogue needs to contain the topic of whether the current system is working, and if the outcomes we get are on par with our desires and what we see in other countries.

    m!

    1. Re:Deregulation by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your rant is spot on. Unfortunately, shouting about being "tough on crime" leads to getting elected, which leads to the "lock them in jail and make jail Hell on Earth" attitude.

      Of course, that does nothing to actually rehabilitate criminals or actually reduce crime -- it just makes you look good come election time. Combine that with a prison system that mostly exists to increase its own profits (q.v. Arizona SB1070) and you've got a recipe for disaster.

    2. Re:Deregulation by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the death penalty was executed (heh heh) in a reasonable timeframe - ie, without a gazillion appeals and stays, then you'd probably find conservatives more willing to discuss lightening up on prison treatment.

      The death penalty is idiotic. First, it simply doesn't work as an effective deterrent to crime as numerous studies have shown. People are too stupidly optimistic so the death penalty results in increased rates of murder and violent crime because stupidly optimistic criminals suddenly believe they have nothing to lose by trying to shoot their way out of bad situations and kill anyone who could be a witness. Second, while from a "justice" standpoint and a "cost effective" standpoint it could be supported, that assumes out legal system is actually effective at convicting the right person and that is clearly not the case. When fingerprints came into general use by law enforcement, we were able to show many people had been wrongly convicted including a significant number of supposed murderers. When DNA testing became affordable, again, dozens of convicted murderers, some on death row, some already executed are proved innocent. Why then would any reasonable person assume that our criminal justice system in general is not regularly convicting a significant number of innocent people? You think it is okay then, to kill those people knowing that later on they may be proved innocent?

      If the police and lawyers and forensic scientists in our criminal justice system were honest and obeyed the law and proper procedure in obtaining convictions, then maybe we could implement the death penalty in a just fashion, but the truth is, we regularly convict innocent people because the system is designed to reward convictions and not punish convictions of the innocent. Hell, groups like the Innocence Project are fighting the courts for the right to test the DNA of convicted persons. Why would anyone interested in justice oppose more accurate forensic investigation of serious crime? Now that DNA evidence is a known quantity, it is certainly fabricated or falsified just like fingerprints were and we will have to wait for the next disruptive forensic technology the police don't know about yet to exonerate those innocent people in prison more recently. With such a broken legal system, I find it dishonorable and unjust to advocate for the death penalty. Doing so is quite clearly advocating for the murder of innocent people convicted by corrupt or simply lazy law enforcement.

  10. Re:Why not just install some phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Prisons have regular phones, that they charge exorbitant rates to use. This is about protecting a monopoly and gouging a segment of the population that nobody gives a damn about.

  11. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by Anrego · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What about cellphone detectors. I’m sure there is a technology that can detect and triangulate the radiation spewing from those things. And they are probably less illegal than jammers.

    I suspect a lot of the stuff that gets smuggled into prisons comes from or is aided by underpaid prison staff (I really think it’s amazing how little they make considering the risk they take) either directly or indirectly. I don’t see how this kind of stuff could make it in, in the quantities that it does, without at least a little help. Even if you came up with a good technical way to stop the cellphone problem, all it takes is one guard to look the other way, and it’s defeated.

    Then again I’ve never been to prison nor been a corrections officer... so I admit I have no clue how stuff actually works there.

  12. Re:OR by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Informative

    They kinda do that here in Florida. Some prisons have their own microcell that grabs the signal from any cell phone in use on the prison grounds. If you aren't using an authorized phone, the signal doesn't go out & the guards are alerted.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  13. Re:A "problem?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the real problem, actually, is that the existing, legal phone system inside armerica's prisons is grossly corrupt. prison phone system providers are given a monopoly, charge exorbitant rates (a 630% markup over normal residential prices) and then actually kickback money to prison officials and politicians to keep their sweet contracts (57.5% of profits to the state of new york, for example).

    my source for these numbers is here

    add to that the fact that even if an inmate can get a prison job, the wages are usually in the dollar-or-less per hour range, sometimes as low as 20c/hr, and you have a situation where the legal phone system is financially unusable. the result is that the economic impulse to get a black market cellphone -- even a $200 one -- is strong.

    if america really wanted to stop black market cellphones, they'd cancel verizon's prison phone contract and offer reasonably-priced access to phone systems to inmates.

    my source for the prison wages info is: here

  14. Re:The point of being in prison by royallthefourth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Creating monsters out of somewhat dysfunctional people only makes the problem worse. "Tough on crime" is an intellectually lazy approach that doesn't help anyone but private prison operators.

  15. Re:Idiots by a-zarkon! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Use a jammer, go to jail. Ironic isn't it. http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations_2&id=cellular

    OK so technically you could get a permit, but you have to wonder if prisons are relying on cellular for official communications at this point. It's become so cheap and prevalent - cellular is replacing radio for a lot of field operations comms requirements these days. (No I can't cite anything beyond what I see at my own job where some of the field crews are cellphone only at this point.) Anyway, if that is the case and prisons are using cellular for their own comms - jamming the prisoner comms becomes problematic and probably creates a safety issue for employees.