Slashdot Mirror


Prisons Moving To All-Video Visitation (mic.com)

"A new system called 'video visitation' is replacing in-person jail visits with glitchy, expensive Skype-like video calls," reports Tech.Mic. "It's inhumane, dystopian and actually increases in-prison violence -- but god, it makes money."

Slashdot reader gurps_npc writes: In-person costs a lot to administer, while you can charge people to 'visit' via video conferencing. (Charge as in overcharge -- just like they charge up to $14 a minute for normal, audio only telephone calls). This is new, and the few studies that have been done show that doing this increases violence in the prison -- and it's believed to also increase recidivism. But the companies making a ton on it like that -- repeat customers and all. Of course, the service is horrible, often being full of static and dropped calls -- and the company doesn't help you fix the problem.
Meanwhile, the EFF reports that last year Facebook disabled 53 U.S prisoner and 74 U.K. prisoner accounts at the request of the government, and is urging people to report takedown requests for inmate social media to OnlineCensorship.org.

46 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    US prisons are a systematic violation of basic human rights. They are barbaric, full of horrific atrocities, and there is no excuse for them.

    1. Re:No surprise by Iamthecheese · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would much rather have the convicted criminals under lock and key than roaming the streets.

      No one is saying prisoners should be let free but this "hard on crime" insanity is actually just hard on criminals, and raises crime rates by turning a guy that made a mistake into a hardened criminal. If you really, truly want safe streets you're going to have to show some compassion.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    2. Re:No surprise by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would much rather have the convicted criminals under lock and key than roaming the streets.

      Nearly all prisoners are eventually released. So a prison system that hardens and desocializes them is probably not a good thing.

      Family and community contact is one of the best ways to reduce recidivism. It is very short sighted to put up barriers to visitation.

      Early in the primaries, prison reform actually looked like it was going to be an election issue. Hillary, Bernie, and John Kasich all spoke out about the problems. Unfortunately, the issue appears to have faded away.

    3. Re:No surprise by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Being nasty to prisoners doesn't actually achieve anything -- it's simply hurting people because you can't or won't control your emotional reactions, much like many of the criminals themselves have done.

      You people should just say you want the death penalty for every crime. Or learn to think and solve problems rather than rage and hate.

    4. Re:No surprise by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know about nationally but locally the courts are pretty lenient on first time offenders for everything other than murder and rape. Usually it's the ones that just don't get the message and go back two or three times that get the hammer dropped. First offense is almost always probation and often second offenses get very little jail time. I guess they figure if you're not getting the message they have to hit you over the head with it to get your attention. When I see someone that's repeatedly broken the law get shoveled off to a long sentence in a shit hole somewhere it's hard to feel much empathy for them. I've been the victim of theft and I have to say that while I don't agree with cruelty I don't think shutting someone up in a cold hard place is worse than letting them back out to prey on people.

    5. Re:No surprise by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Anyone can be a "criminal", if the government decides its advantageous to call you one. Pot smoker? Criminal. Sell your buddy a few of your joints? You're a dealer. Live in the same house as someone who sold a joint to someone? You're an accessory. In fact your the most pitiful kind of accessory there is: somebody with nobody valuable to rat on. Guys who sell marijuana by the bale will get less time than you do.

      Texas of course has taken this to a new low.

      I did a little Google searching and found out that the Travis County Correctional facility is the largest mental health provider in its region. Why? Because as mental health beds are disappearing the county is shifting those people to its prison. And now they're trying to turn mental patients and recreational pot smokers into a profit center.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:No surprise by AchilleTalon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't believe you can label an addict consuming what he/she is addicted to taking a conscious decision by consuming it. It is a bit more complicated than that.We call that an addiction for a reason.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    7. Re:No surprise by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      here is absolutely no reproducible scientific evidence to back that up.

      False. From March of 2016:

      New research published on-line in advance of print in the journal Psychological Medicine, concludes that continued use of cannabis causes violent behavior as a direct result of changes in brain function that are caused by smoking weed over many years.

      Further on the article states:

      What makes this new study more compelling than previous studies is that the researchers followed the same individuals for over 50 years from a young age to adulthood. This is precisely what one needs to solve the chicken or egg riddle with respect to cannabis and violence: just look and see which one happens first.

      In other words, they weren't doing random shit. They followed the scientific evidence to back up their findings.

      Would you like to troll some more and be like creationists and ignore the facts?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    8. Re:No surprise by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So how did this study control for the demographic differences between pot use reporting populations and not?

      They didn't? What a surprise. Worthless study. Richer people were much less likely to admit it, especially historically.

      You need to double check the definition of 'scientific evidence'. It doesn't mean: 'Things I agree with.'

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not according to this. Violent felons make up the largest percentage of the prisoners.

      http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004339

    10. Re:No surprise by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "...pot makes one more aggressive for a short time immediately after consuming/smoking."

      I call bullshit. After consuming pot in multiple ways with hundreds of other people in all kinds of situations for over 40 years, I've never seen this "effect", period.

      I no longer smoke or consume pot, but I repeat: I have never, ever seen anyone become more aggressive after using it, immediately or otherwise.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    11. Re:No surprise by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      But the goal IS to desocialize them. How else do you get repeat offenders and keep the system running? The very LAST thing prisons want is fewer criminals, it cuts into their bottom line.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:No surprise by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not according to this. Violent felons make up the largest percentage of the prisoners.

      Your own citation clearly states that violent offenders are a minority of the prison population.

    13. Re:No surprise by currently_awake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For profit prisons have a vested interest in not reforming criminals. They have a vested interest in making money. This achieves both goals.

    14. Re:No surprise by gweihir · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, the US is at hart a fundamentalist religious nation. These like to condemn and torture anybody that missteps forever, no mercy to be had. (What, say, the core of the Christian faith says about people that do this to others is not pretty.) Hence adding the maximum level of exploitation on top is no surprise. Kind of reminds me of what was going on in Nazi Concentration Camps and USSR Gulags, or today in similar installations in North Korea. The next step will be involuntary medical experiments. Josef Mengele would be so proud.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    15. Re:No surprise by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      Your own citation clearly states that violent offenders are a minority of the prison population.

      Sure, spin those stats.

      What they show is that while violent offenders are a "minority" when you combine all other categories into one , as a category violent offenders are by far the largest category.

      As well, 47.7% isn't exactly a small "minority.

      2012 Stats
      Violent - 47.7%
      Property - 17.1%
      Drug - 20.5%
      Public-Order - 13.8% (what is "public-order"?)
      Other - 0.7%

      And, when you combine violent offender and property crime, that's a majority, unless you want to tell me that burglary and car theft and such things should be punished with a "Oh please don't do that again..."

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    16. Re:No surprise by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. "Tough on crime" does not work, or rather it has the opposite of the intended effect. That has been known reliably for a long, long time. Criminals do not expect to be caught, and hence penalties do not figure in their motivation. And then not giving them a good chance to become part of society again after they were caught, just makes the problem much, much worse.

      The cave-man reflex of just applying more violence to anything undesirable makes basically every problem worse, but being cave-men, its proponents are not equipped to even grasp simple statistics that say they are doing it wrong. Incidentally, the same effect is at work with the "War on Drugs" that has created huge crime-cartels and a lot of users that suffer entirely preventable damage due to contaminated drugs or that have to do crime due to artificially and massively inflated prices. Or the "War on Terror" that has created a lot of new terrorists by killing inconceivable numbers of innocent bystanders.

      Applying violence to a problem is about the most base and most stupid thing you can do. The only thing more stupid is to apply more violence when the approach fails.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    17. Re:No surprise by gweihir · · Score: 4, Informative

      The thing is, the US prison industry _wants_ repeat customers. There is a lot of money in it. Hence anything even remotely targeted at reintegrating former criminals gets squashed, to extreme overall costs for society.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    18. Re:No surprise by KGIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having worked in a military detention facility and having interviewed and toured at a civilian facility, I've noticed some odd things.

      You go to prison *as* punishment and not *for* punishment.

      This is entirely backwards in a civilian facility. Prison should be a place where one still has a modicum of respect and self-determination. No, it needn't be insecure to do so. The greatest thing a government should be able to take is your freedom, your dignity (or lack of it) should be your own.

      I've mentioned this before but it's this important and has meant that much to me - for all these years.

      From the staff side, entering in through the Sally Port, was an old cross-stitched sign on the wall. It was dull and faded, certainly not regulation, but it had been there for as long as anyone could remember. On that sign was a simple, but important, adage. It said, "There, but by the Grace of God, go I."

      I suppose that won't mean anything to you and that you'll be unable (unwilling?) to understand it. So, consider it not writ large on your behalf but for the others who might take your post to heart without having the benefit of an alternative view.

      I was a chaser/escort - in civilian terms I was a "Transportation Officer." It ties into my oft-quoted determination/conclusion that people are people, pretty much everywhere you go. Lest you read this and think you're still cognizant, I encourage you to recollect the sign. "There, but by the Grace of God, go I."

      It should be /as/ punishment and not /for/ punishment.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    19. Re: No surprise by KGIII · · Score: 2

      I own a portion of a company that makes specialty ropes, you insensitive clod!

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re:No surprise by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would much rather have the convicted criminals under lock and key than roaming the streets.

      They are eventually released, incapable of interacting with lawful society because they've become so removed from normal human social behavior that they have adapted to the violent prison life.

      Recidivism costs us real money. These for-profit prisons are stealing our tax dollars because they aren't taking care of the long term interests of society keeping the recidivism rate low.

      The Free Market fails again.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    21. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      concludes that continued use of cannabis causes violent behavior

      That explains how all the stoners I know are dangerous, unpredictable, and violent.

      Oh no. Wait. That's not right, they're actually all productive and gainfully employed members of society. My mistake.

    22. Re:No surprise by brantondaveperson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You go to prison *as* punishment and not *for* punishment.

      This is by far the most insightful comment in this entire thread.

    23. Re:No surprise by Your.Master · · Score: 2

      I'm predisposed to agree with you, but the study summary says that it controlled for "other putative risk factors for violence", and that they didn't just use self-reports but also criminal records (and yes, I know that criminal records are also biased).

      I'm not paying $6 to pass the paywall to get more clarity on their controls though. You could be right but I'm not convinced you are.

      You need to double check the definition of 'scientific evidence'. It doesn't mean: 'Things I agree with.'

      It honestly sounds like you are calling this evidence unscientific because it isn't in the set of "Things I agree with".

      Here's a possible out, though: just because a valid scientific study does find a correlation, doesn't mean that a correlation is there today. Maybe this 50-year study contains a 15-year stretch where there was some strong correlation (made-up example: violent cults that incorporate marijuana use in their nonviolent rituals), but that correlating factor no longer exists. A 50 year study like this one would capture that correlation but modern studies are unlikely to detect the causation. This said I just made that up as an example.

    24. Re:No surprise by Beeftopia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed. "Tough on crime" does not work, or rather it has the opposite of the intended effect. That has been known reliably for a long, long time. Criminals do not expect to be caught, and hence penalties do not figure in their motivation.

      That's not "settled science":

      1) Sentence Enhancements Reduce Crime

      2) Longer prison terms really do cut crime, study shows

      Here's a simple thought experiment on deterrence. In each of the following scenarios, do we get a) More crime, b) less crime, c) no change?:
      1) If we actively rewarded crime?
      2) If crime had no state-imposed penalty?
      3) If crime had state-imposed minimally inconveniencing penalties?
      4) If crime had harsh state-imposed penalties?

      You're suggesting deterrence doesn't work because no offender thinks he'll be caught. I don't think that's true. The possibility of capture likely has some place in the offender's risk analysis. Hence many criminals' actions to minimize their possibility of capture.

      I admit that deterrence will not deter everyone. But it is safe to say it will deter at least some. And we should take what we can get.

    25. Re:No surprise by KGIII · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not many people even understand it. *sighs* Look at all the comments you see in the threads where someone they loathe is probably going to prison. There are people actively expressing their hope that the person be given "prison justice" in the form of rape, beatings, and even death. There are some horrible people out there and no, I'm not actually talking about the people who are incarcerated.

      An interesting aside, seeing as I'm already typing, is that just prior to the cessation of the Korean War's military actions if a Marine Escort/Chaser lost their detainee then they were obligated to serve that person's time up until the escaped prisoner had been returned to custody. I believe this part remains true to this day: If you escape, or try to escape, from a custodial sentence in a military facility there is no time added to your sentence nor is it a crime in and of itself. The natural state of a human is to be free of restraint. To try to escape is natural and thus not considered a criminal offense in the UCMJ.

      However, I never had anyone attempt to escape or even appear to be considering it. We were trained, more or less, to treat the prisoners with respect. In fact, the prisoner may outrank you and still retain their rank until such time as they are officially dismissed from service. (No, they can not order you to let them go - such would be an unlawful order.) There are some strange protocols that might sound odd to a civilian but it's essential to keep in mind that our wards were trained to kill. There are no firearms inside the secure zone and more of them than there are of you - and they've already been acclimated to CS gas. Even if it weren't the humane thing to do, it would still be *very* wise to treat the prisoners with respect.

      I didn't spend much time inside the secure zone. I was not on guard duty, patrol, rover, or anything like that. I'd been trained (we all were) to fill those roles but my specific duty was transport/escort. I took them to court, medical, escorted to funerals, and sometimes flew with them to a detention center that was closer to their home. I drove everything from a bus to what is pretty much just your standard police cruiser.

      One of the more memorable episodes was when a civilian court officer tried to disarm me. No, not violently or with force or anything but vocally asserting that I was not authorized to carry a firearm or bring any weapons into the court. We got a call on the radio telling me that it had been resolved and that I was to bring the accused back to the court. I'd simply turned around and taken my prisoner back out to the cruiser and was driving back to base. My job was not just to stop my prisoner from escaping but it was also to prevent them from coming to harm. I was not going to allow my prisoner to be cuffed and shackled (defenseless, pretty much) in a group of angry civilians and not retain my service weapons.

      Contrary to popular opinion, I'm not Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee, or anything like that. I'm not going to leave my prisoner undefended. There's more to detention than just keeping them detained. There's an obligation to keep them from harm. That and there were a lot of really angry people in the courtroom. My prisoner had beaten the shit out of some well-liked civilian. If you're curious, he was acquitted in the civilian court but was still went through the court martial and was convicted there and ousted from the Marines. It turns out that not only had he not swung first but the civilian was drunk (as was the young Marine) and was insulting him with racist slurs before he hit him. Once he hit him, things got a bit out of hand and much damage was done and that resulted in permanent brain injury to the civilian. I'm not sure what the end result was as I wasn't the one to transport him at the end and I've no idea what happened in the civil trial that followed. He was already bucked out of the service by then.

      I dunno, this is already long enough but it's about humane treatment and respect. It's not hard to treat humans like untam

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    26. Re:No surprise by aberglas · · Score: 2

      Well, there might not be any evidence to support your "well known" theory. Indeed much research to show the opposite.

      But there is plenty of evidence that "Tough on Crime" does work very well ... for the people that make money out of the prison system.

    27. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not every addict is taking heroin. Some start Oxy, or Ativan, or (common drug here) because a doctor prescribed it and they became addicted to it without any intent. Did you know there are certain genes that make drugs like Ativan super addictive? Mutations to liver enzyme pathways CYP450 2D6 and 3A4 combined in the right increase/decrease of those enzymes make the drug between 4 and 10 times as powerful as it is expected to be; meaning a doctor who prescribes the medication in a good faith dosage could be starting a person's addiction. And that mutation occurs in between 5% and 10% of people of certain ethnicity. Certain mutations of just the CYP450 2D6 enzyme pathway can make Oxy (or any codeine prodrug) super-effective, causing your body to turn more than the expected 5% of codeine into morphine: imagine the doctor thinking you were taking a pill that was supposed to be 5mg and it was actually 20mg, the effect is the same.

      source: self. had to get a gene test when I needed an anti-anxiety but had just barely avoided an ativan habit. can't remember the first test that was done, but the second is Genesight

    28. Re:No surprise by nbauman · · Score: 2

      That's not "settled science":

      1) Sentence Enhancements Reduce Crime

      2) Longer prison terms really do cut crime, study shows

      White papers by economists at the NBER are not scientific evidence.

      White papers aren't peer-reviewed. That allows authors to get away with any bullshit that the reviewers and editors of a peer-reviewed paper would challenge.

      Economists aren't scientists. They find association and accept it as causation, as they do with this study. Scientists find associations all the time, but when they do a controlled study, about half the time the association doesn't hold up and there is no causation.

      Steven Levitt is especially a bullshit artist who doesn't know how to deal with numbers (even though he is very skillful at making a name for himself). He once wrote a column in the New York Times claiming that children's seat belts don't save lives. I checked his sources and he got his numbers wrong. For an economist, the inability to count is a serious problem.

    29. Re:No surprise by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      Not according to this. Violent felons make up the largest percentage of the prisoners.

      http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004339

      On 5 out of 7 years in that chart 'violent' felons make up under 50%. Just because they're all lumped into one where the non violent crimes are split up doesn't mean there's more of them. So according to your own information you should have said "Violent felons make up just under half of the prisoners".

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  2. Humane visitation by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Let's keep it in perspective, shall we? Many of the folks behind bars in the US are young, nonviolent offenders who stand a reasonable chance of rehabilitation.

    Contact visits with family and loved ones are a privilege, and give the inmates something to look forward to and stay out of trouble for.

    If prisoners wind up with daily lives so poor nothing that can be taken away from them, who's going to want to take care of them?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Humane visitation by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Let's not forget the politicians who take advantage of voters' tendencies towards irrational hysteria to pass draconian laws. This whole "eye for an eye" thing causes more misery, and does absolutely nothing to prevent crime.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  3. Yeah, this system is evil. by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our prison system seems to be turning increasingly evil - as in, willfully and casually harming others on a consistent basis well beyond their charter of stopping harm to others, for their own benefit.

    They're increasingly subverting our political process, in order to take what should arguably be a time of reformation and a path back to society (and improvement of the general welfare), and using is to transform every human into a maximum income machine, including transforming laws to make the process worse. There's occasional noises towards public good in the letter of the rules of these places, but they're getting increasingly privatized and 'efficient' at gathering money.

    I understand the ideal - this is where we throw folks who won't follow the rules, who won't respond to fines, a place where we repay unfairness with unfairness, so that we can remain productive. Which would be a fine ideal too, if it didn't cost taxpayers $60,000-$130,000 a year per person for land,buildings, employees,healthcare, goods, administration, etc.. We're basically paying for a rather large professional army, complete with all the logistics, in order to make a large portion of our population feel bad for the rest of their lives, for the most part.

    It's part of why I've never understood the common Christian conception of Hell - a place of eternal pain, complete with the equivalent of angels who spend their existences making people feel bad for something they can no longer do anything about.

    If the point of this horrible song and dance was to reduce motivation to break rules - then there should be a television in every public space, if not in every home, to show the suffering of rule breakers, to at least justify the lesson that we should be learning from all this suffering. If all these people were paying the cost, for our benefit, then all our children should see their suffering, so all this suffering wouldn't be a waste of both their lives and the time of all the people spending their lives imprisoning them.

    Perhaps we don't because we really are all rule breakers. Most traffic studies I've seen find that the average driver breaks around 4,000 traffic laws every year. Proportionally the same with bike riders and pedestrians. And that's just the easily observable stuff. But we don't really enforce our rules, instead we pay people to selectively enforce them, and prosecute infractions in some of the oddest ways possible. Things like 'discovery processes', armies of paid lawyers, laws changing at the request of lobbyists, special courts, judges owning stakes in other parts of the process, and very strange politics and biases everywhere.

    If the point of the whole game is to pay the least amount of resources, in order to keep the maximum number of people cooperative and productive, then I think everyone would judge that we're doing this the wrong way. There's a LOT of nations to compare against, and we're having worse results than almost all of them.

    The prisons we have now are doing horrible jobs in all regards, and are actively engaged in a process of making things worse. If we're spending all these resources, the cheapest thing to do is to take this large army, and reconcile it with better, more productive, and cheaper goals. It's never going to be cheap or easy, but almost anything is going to be cheaper and easier than the road we're going down now.

    Ryan Fenton

  4. Dehumanization Complete by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is just another way to isolate inmates and dehumanize them so they have fewer resources and less meaningful, human contact. This is how they strip a person of every last vestige of their humanity.

    I understand that for long-distance scenarios this video-visitation could be a good thing, but to prevent people from meeting in person is wrong and abusive.

    Welcome to the Prison Industrial Complex, where you're not an inmate, you're a profit-center. Heaven forbid they use Skype, which actually works- no, lets use our proprietary "solution" that's not worth a shit and doesn't actually work. Because if we used Skype we couldn't charge an arm and a leg for our "service".

    Some things should not be run for profit, including schools, police services, hospitals, and prisons.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  5. For-profit prison system by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The prison system is being run by for-profit companies. Those companies actually want the prison population to increase and for prisoners to continually return to prison after their release. It makes the shareholders happy and wealthy.

    1. Re:For-profit prison system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This.
      Instead of paying the prisons per prisoner, the government should pay less for repeat offenders.
      This will give those companies a reason to rehabilitate people.
      Better yet, don't try to shoehorn something that is clearly a government concern into the private sector.
      Otherwise, why pay for the prisoners at all?
      Surely the free market can take care of itself without government handouts?

  6. Re:I have an idea by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Yes, well, Let's take a slightly more inclusive view, no?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. Re:I have an idea by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Sorry, took the word "felons" at face value.

    So, let's get really all inclusive and call it what it is, Correctional population, which, at a mere 6.85 mil, is at its "lowest rate since 1996", putting only 2.8% of the adult population through the system... But it doesn't show the breakdown.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  8. I used this system recently by Wiseleo · · Score: 4, Informative

    An associate got jailed and I "visited" him twice in Glynn county jail in Georgia.

    That was the only quick way I could initiate contact from outside. Other ways include sending postcards by mail... The system uses low-end webcams and offers no privacy to the inmate. They don't use a handset, which means audio gets overheard by other inmates. Camera was aimed too high. I could see other inmates. "Visits" at that facility need to be done at specific times and are limited to 15 minutes. I gave him some vital information and setup schedule for for when I would be available to accept his calls.

    By contrast, inmates can make a phone call that gets billed to the person outside seemingly at any time. They can make repeated phone calls and the amount of contact seems to be limited mostly by the wallet of the person outside. They use a phone handset, which offers improved audio quality and privacy with regards to other inmates.

    My phone bill from PayTel was allegedly 21 cents per minute, but the actual blended rate once you incorporate all the fees is 36.6 cents.

    --
    Leonid S. Knyshov
    Find me on Quora :)
  9. prisons are run to hurt society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    A friend of mine was in prison because federal prosecutors don't have any ethics that they have to follow. The prosecutor lied so blatantly that their own expert witness sued them. Still, the jury ate it up because the lies fit their preconceived notions.

    Inside prison, everything is run by gangs. Intimidation is constant, violence is common, maiming and murder is not uncommon, and people only survive by becoming a hardened criminal.

    They come out much worse - for them and for society.

    I have no problem with harsh punishment. I do demand good results, and our current system is not producing them.

    1. Re:prisons are run to hurt society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is not that people are sent to prison. The problem is how the prisons are.

      Why should gangs even be able to have any power inside prisons? There is no need for that. Make a prison where prisoners have less contact with other prisoners - mostly contact with guards. Get rid of prison rape, gange rule etc.

      Prison should still be where you don't want to be. Because of the BOREDOM of years inside. Being locked up and going nowhere. Not "fear of other prisoners"

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. I actually know a felon by Beeftopia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, I know a felon, a guy who incarcerated for felony theft. He was a real treacherous shitbag before he went in, but now, he's quite polite (I'm sure he's still quite treacherous but I have no interest in finding out). No more late night parties, his house (yes, there is money in his family, so he has a house) is lights out relatively early in the evening. I think prison had quite the correct effect on this guy. It seems to have deterred him from future criminality.

    Prison should deter people, both those who have committed crimes so they don't want to return, and those who don't with to have a stay in the first place.

    This nonsense about 'everyone is a criminal - you're committing crimes right now' - is nonsense. I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support such a thing (which I how I make decisions on the accuracy of claims).

    If you have a panic attack whenever you see a cop, that would seem to warrant an examination of your own life. Don't ride dirty. Don't have guns, drugs or drug paraphernalia on you or in your car.

    Are there bad cops? Of course. Do they make up more than a tiny minority of cops? No. I haven't seen a lick of evidence to suggest otherwise.

    Lionizing criminals, which I remember in the 70s and 80s only leads to a lot of innocent people suffering. Criminals should be held to account for their actions.

    1. Re:I actually know a felon by imidan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you have a panic attack whenever you see a cop, that would seem to warrant an examination of your own life. Don't ride dirty. Don't have guns, drugs or drug paraphernalia on you or in your car.

      I don't have a panic attack when I see a cop, but I *am* acutely aware that the cops are not my friend. I don't really know what constitutes 'riding dirty'. I don't have guns, drugs, or drug paraphernalia in my car. But if a cop has a notion to fuck up my day and my car because I'm driving through his shitty little town and they make their revenues by making bullshit traffic stops and ginning up cause to search my car and stealing any cash I have through civil forfeiture, there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. I'm completely powerless in that situation, and a lot of the creepy fucks who are attracted to police work get their jollies by taking advantage of that power imbalance. Or maybe they're just corrupt and greedy. Their motivation doesn't matter that much.

      There are plenty of examples of this behavior in news reports. There is no reason to believe it can't happen to me. I mean, here's one from just a few days ago, where the only reason the victims had their money (~$50,000) returned is that they were a Christian band who had raised the money for an orphanage, and that kind of thing makes bad headlines. http://dailysignal.com/2016/04...?

  13. Cannabis by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not that marijuana has never been linked to any deaths, it's that there has never been a lethal marijuana overdose, and estimates of the LD50 are 20,000 to 40,000 times the normal dose. I have no doubt that marijuana in combination with other drugs or other health conditions could be fatal, but [a] the difference between the effective dose and the lethal dose is one of the greatest of all psychoactive substances, and [b] consuming a lethal dose is more than a little impractical. It is completely impossible to consume a lethal dose of marijuana cigarettes. Even taking low estimates for the LD50, it would require smoking more than one cigarette per second for a sustained period of time.

    As you no doubt know, the role of cannabis in producing psychosis is debated, and odds are there are genetic factors there as well. I believe it is more fair to say that drug use can produce psychosis in susceptible individuals, without needing to be more specific. Similarly, there are studies on both sides of the violence issue, and using the word "linked" is somewhat disingenuous. I believe further study is necessary to be able to firmly establish either position.

    Cannabis has been established as one of the safest recreational drugs. One can even make favorable comparisons to caffeine. As one of the >40% of the US who has tried marijuana, I would say you're being alarmist, and I don't think that balances out the "pro-drug propaganda". Telling people to "Fuck off!" is also not indicative of a desire for honest discussion.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.