Slashdot Mirror
EFF: Hundreds of S. Carolina Prisoners Sent To Solitary For Social Media Use
According to the EFF's Deep LInks, Through a request under South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act, EFF found that, over the last three years, prison officials have brought more than 400 hundred disciplinary cases for "social networking" — almost always for using Facebook. The offenses come with heavy penalties, such as years in solitary confinement and deprivation of virtually all privileges, including visitation and telephone access. In 16 cases, inmates were sentenced to more than a decade in what’s called disciplinary detention, with at least one inmate receiving more than 37 years in isolation. ... The sentences are so long because SCDC issues a separate Level 1 violation for each day that an inmate accesses a social network. An inmate who posts five status updates over five days, would receive five separate Level 1 violations, while an inmate who posted 100 updates in one day would receive only one. In other words, if a South Carolina inmate caused a riot, took three hostages, murdered them, stole their clothes, and then escaped, he could still wind up with fewer Level 1 offenses than an inmate who updated Facebook every day for two weeks.
When can we start punishing non-inmates for this offense?
I don't see why inmates need access to it at all. They can find plenty of other ways to not be productive.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
How is communicating on Facebook different than making phone calls or sending letters to the outside world?
How in the world are they posting to facebook? Are they using smuggled in devices, or are they using devices provided by the prison system? If the later, why don't they just block access to facebook at a level where the inmates can't override it?
Usage of social media is equivalent to unsupervised communication with people outside the prison walls. To my knowledge this has always been a big deal and whatever technology is used shouldn't make much of a difference in punishment. Even seemingly innocent communications can be forms of steganography.
Also, I'm pretty sure inmates who commit murder will be charged with murder.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
What the sensational article deliberately ignores is what these prisoners were doing ... running gangs on smuggled phones.
The offense is unauthorized communications. Facebook posts are convenient proof of that offense. Someone with access to a telecommunications device could be ordering gangland hits just as easily as liking someone on Facebook.
Three things:
1. This really is a punishment grossly disproportionate with the magnitude of the rule broken.
2. If they don't want them using Facebook, then why isn't it blocked on all computers that inmates have access to?
3. Using Facebook is punishment enough in and of itself, why add insult to injury over it?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I assume they mean solitary when they say isolation. I don't care what "crime" these cons did on the inside, unless you're talking about Magneto and his plastic cell no one should be in solitary for 37 years.
Long term use of the SHU seems to be used as punishment, or more appropriately a form of torture. I can barely imagine the psychological and physical damage of being in the SHU for that long. We may as well be blasting loud music 24/7 and practice forced feedings while we're at it.
If you're so worried about communicating outside the prison and apparently unable to control smartphones from getting inside then maybe you should start looking at Faraday cages or jamming signals. I'm sure the FCC would give an exception given enough proof that these communications were actually resulting in gang activity.
I used to think that inmates talking about prison being a business was bullshit. Then I see how many prisons are privately run and how deals are made to keep that at a certain capacity. Then think of all the support companies that sell items to prisons (clothing, food, equipment, employees, etc etc). Then you look at the incarceration rate of the USA compared to other countries and it all becomes clear.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
All the Level 1 offenses in the world can't make their prison stay LONGER than what they were originally sentenced for. It just makes their time in prison more boring- it's punishment because they shouldn't have access to phones in the first place, because inmates run their gangs and can make hits on officers and civilians from behind prison walls using the internet. So the comparison between an Inmate accessing facebook for 2 weeks getting more severe punishment than an inmate who murders people is ludicrous- because the person who murders people and then runs away will be charged with several different counts and will get MORE prison time, whereas the dude who accessed Facebook will keep his original sentence.
I never understood why prisons are mandated to install cell jammers around the entire prison. This simple solution would a) prevent violent and dangerous criminals from being able to communicate with cohorts outside of prison, and b) prevent corrupt guards from profiting through providing criminals with cellular contraband.
I know this sounds terribly traditional, but what could be wrong with sending a friend a letter in which you give instructions to post an update to social media on your behalf? I'm sure that all letters from prison would be read to make sure they're not carrying out something illegal, but it's not illegal for the friend to post an online update, right?
Or how about this: The friend starts a blog called "Letters From Sam in Jail" and just posts a scan of each letter received. That's a clear case where the prisoner is (indirectly) blogging, but nobody is doing something wrong. Right?
4:30PM: wrapping shank handle :( :( :( :( fucking hate that puta
6:00PM: meat balls cold noodles
1:00AM: hooked sum smokes from the line
1:01AM: i hate menthol
2:24PM: finished shank! check teh pic itz bad ass
4:01PM: lawyer sez my appeal isup next week. coolz
7:10PM: sharpen shank. it was sharp but lolz
9:00AM: powdered eggs again
1:15PM: emilio took the shank
6:05PM: meat balls rice
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
It is supposed to take that person out of society because society doesn't want them. Letting them back in through social media defeats the purpose.
The issue is quite a bit more complex than that. For example, there are THREE primary goals/duties for prisons:
1. Punish, as you said.
2. Warehouse - prevent more crime by isolating the individual from the rest of us
3. Reform - because they most likely get out sometime, we need to fix whatever causes them to be criminal in the first place, if possible.
You have to balance the three duties, and I'd argue that the US system needs to add a hefty dose of #3, and social media, communication can help *a lot* with this. The vast majority of prisoners are NOT drug kingpins who will order hits from prison if they're allowed to communicate with the outside.
I don't read AC A human right
If you can hide your crime, you won't do the time.
Illegal is defined by what you can get caught for.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
South Carolina attempted to oblige once. Why didn't y'all just let them?