Slashdot Mirror
Jails Are Replacing Visits With Video Calls (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: In recent years, more and more jails have introduced video-calling services. Theoretically, these products could make it easier for inmates to maintain their relationships with family and friends outside. But many jails have moved in the opposite direction, using the advent of these "video visitation" services as an excuse to restrict or eliminate traditional in-person visits.
There are a number of reasons jail administrators have gone this route. But critics say that money plays a big role. In-person visitation requires more staff supervision -- both to escort inmates to and from visitation rooms and to make sure no contraband changes hands during a visit. So switching to video visitation can save cash-strapped jails money.
But jails also profit more directly from limiting in-person visits. While on-site video visits are usually free, the companies providing the system generally offer a paid off-site video-calling service, too. And jails get a hefty percentage of that money.
There are a number of reasons jail administrators have gone this route. But critics say that money plays a big role. In-person visitation requires more staff supervision -- both to escort inmates to and from visitation rooms and to make sure no contraband changes hands during a visit. So switching to video visitation can save cash-strapped jails money.
But jails also profit more directly from limiting in-person visits. While on-site video visits are usually free, the companies providing the system generally offer a paid off-site video-calling service, too. And jails get a hefty percentage of that money.
Studies have consistently found that prisoners who maintain close contact with their family members while incarcerated have better post-release outcomes and lower recidivism rates. These findings represent a body of research stretching back over 40 years. For example, according to “Explorations in Inmate-Family Relationships,” a 1972 study: “The central finding of this research is the strong and consistent positive relationship that exists between parole success and maintaining strong family ties while in prison. Only 50 percent of the ‘no contact’ inmates completed their first year on parole without being arrested, while 70 percent of those with three visitors were ‘arrest free’ during this period. In addition, the ‘loners’ were six times more likely to wind up back in prison during the first year (12 percent returned compared to 2 percent for those with three or more visitors). For all Base Expectancy levels, we found that those who maintained closer ties performed more satisfactorily on parole.” https://www.prisonlegalnews.or...
Because we recognize marriage and that people have needs.
I have no clue if these visits are allowed outside of marriage but I think they are. They were allowed (permitted) when I was dating a sheriff. She told me too many stories about the dramas that would go on in Bexar County jails.
(1) Keeps inmates sane. (2) Keeps inmates compliant. (3) Reduces instances of sex between inmates. (4) Keeps inmates connected to the world outside the walls. Social support network and significant others are important in preventing recidivism. CA and NY, states that actually pretend to care about rehabilitation, have kept them for that reason.
I, for one, think we need to squeeze all humanity our of these toxic masculine evil men. They should be a hollow shell when we're done with them. They're just men after all; evil from the day they were born, amirite?
Healthcare, prisons, and education, should never be run for profit, as this amounts to an automatic restriction of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Prisoners can fight back. Refuse to participate in any work release program. Refuse to participate in any prison line work program (laundry, kitchen, etc...) Making private prisons a losing financial proposition will force the state to implement prison reforms.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Video calling allows for much more frequent contact, so according to your study prisoners would be better off using the video system.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You still have the right to an unmonitored attorney vist.
In before the "they deserve hell on Earth because they were caught with a small amount of drugs or stole something worth $100" authoritarian crowd chimes in. Anyway, in-person human contact in a prison -- from jailers (not "correction officers") and other inmates is likely to be violent and abusive. Giving inmates the opportunity at loving contact with family, friends, and spouses (yes, conjugal should be allowed) makes them more likely to be sane upon being released. Removing all normal human contact makes psychological damage and violence more likely after release.
I understand the need to save money. But money is best saved by non locking up non-violent drug offenders -- what adults put into their own bodies should be their own choice. Same with diverting petty thieves, the homeless, non-functional addicts, and the mentally ill to community service, shelters, and mental health therapy as appropriate.
But hey. It's America. We'd rather punish than treat. Because Puritanism.
While the article seems to only focus on the negative -- heck, even the /. summary only states "There are a number of reasons jail administrators have gone this route," without explaining why, then goes on to state: "But critics say that money plays a big role. In-person visitation requires more staff supervision..."
There are some huge reasons to limit outside visitation, not the least of which is contraband, such as cell phones, drugs and even weapons that are most often brought in by visitors.
Are drugs also sold to inmates by guards? Yes, but that's an internal problem all prisons must deal with, but I can certainly see a legitimate reason for limiting outside visitors when so many of the problems within prisons come from the outside.
It also amazes me that gang leaders can continue to run their organizations from prison.
... opens the door for casing the joint before grabbing all the shit.
Think Equifax is porous?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
The prison service in the US is run as a profit-centre.
Literally no civilised country in the world sees incarceration rates, or such profit from the prison services, as the US has.
Basically, the US keeps modern-day slaves of the prison population, in for-profit prisons, thus giving it the incentive to incarcerate as many people as possible (contrary to almost every other country which is trying to CUT their prison population and spending money to do so).
Ironically, the US forbids buying items produced in foreign prisons but makes more of them than any other country in the world.
Also don't be near an officer having a bad day, don't look like someone they're after and especially don't have any valuable property that'd be nice to take via throw down drugs and forfeiture, etc.
This is how most people will react:
1) They did the crime, they should be able to do the time.
2) They did the crime, they should be able to do the time.
3) They did the crime, they should be able to do the time.
4) They did the crime, they should be able to do the time.
People do not realize that not all that are in prison are harcore criminals. At least not the first time they went in. And as long as the prisons keep making money and are for-profit, why should they care? It is so much easier to turn a blind eye and say that these are not our problems and just be even tougher on those who get out, so they are put away and we can sleep knowing we have done what we could.
Oh and if they are in prison, rape is ok, because it is funny, right?
I absolutely understand those high risk car chases in the US. If I am in Europe and they catch me, I will get perhaps a year and I can start to get a new life. In the US, my life is over. I have nothing to loose, so why not risk it all in the off chance that it works.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Mostly because these people are Human Beings, and deserve some sense of humanity.
Because of America's hard nose attitude towards the law, they are a lot of small time offenders in jail, who are not really a danger to other people or themselves. But are locked up for breaking the law.
The jail system in general needs some benefits for good behavior and things that can be removed if bad behavior. So for many of the small time criminals in jail, and being that can behave, they should have access to normal human rights.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You're British from your writing. You're actually understating the problem. There is no "US Prison Service." The closest one can come to that are Federal prisons, but most inmates are not in the Federal system.
What we have are State, County, and even City prisons, all run by different authorities, some public, some privately contracted, all with opportunity for abuse, corruption, graft, and kickbacks. There are thousands of little fiefdoms that operate without much oversight from competent authorities.
Same goes for police forces. UK has them on a national and county level. Every American jerkwater town can have their own police, and training, hiring standards, etc vary widely. If these systems were consolidated at the State level with strict court oversight, a lot of corruption would be cleaned up. But no one wants to give up their little profit centers.
No, they have drones for that :)
Throughout history, the unjust jail and jail until the masses get tired of it and kill the jailers. It's not something you are going to hear in the media, it's just a fact. If you doubt me, look into the history of the Bastille and the Tower of London. Both have been the impetus of revolution. That's just a taste, too, since history is rife with such stories.
Yep. Something like 5% of the US population has spent a night in jail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You really want to find out what happened in 1975-1980 and undo it (hint: prison privatisation).
I wouldn't even mind but your crime and re-offending rates are actually much WORSE than a lot of other countries.
Why on earth you'd ever want some non-government-funded / regulated police or prison service, I can't begin to fathom.
Where there is not a public safety concern, inmates should be given the occasional day pass to visit friends and family outside the prison, and return afterward. Likewise, they should be allowed to hold jobs outside the prison. Whenever possible and with no requirements on time served, they should be transitioned to parole in so far as the public safety risk is assessed to allow such transition. Parole fees must be abolished.
The environment inside prison should resemble the ideal societal environment as much as possible: prisoners must be treated with dignity respective of their value as human beings, and their individual needs must be met. All surfaces within the prison must be scrubbed clean at all times; proper hygiene must be available; and communication with the outside world must be retained.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The profit center piece of this should not be understated. Prisons extort significant amounts of money from prisoners' families for communications.
In Tennessee, a 15 minute inmate phone call costs $2.40 for in-state long distance and $3.15 for out-of-state long distance. "Maybe these just haven't been updated in a long time?" No, these are the updated rates from 2017. Before that it was almost /double/ this.
With that as prologue, why should we expect any less from video calls?
Mostly because these people are Human Beings, and deserve some sense of humanity.
Well, yes.
So for many of the small time criminals in jail, and being that can behave, they should have access to normal human rights.
Well, no. All prisoners must have access to all normal human rights to the greatest extent possible without creating a risk to the safety of others.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
jail isn't specifically meant to cause anguish, so much as it is meant to teach a lesson in order to reduce recidivism.
Those statements contradict: punishment is anguish.
You want to strike a balance of juuuust miserable enough, basically.
We take their liberty; we do not take their humanity. The prison life must be secure. It must convey freedom and liberty to the greatest extent possible. The individual needs of every inmate must be met.
The better they are treated, the better they come out.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Dear United Kingdom--
Can you please take us back as a colony? We'd be better off. We apologize for our little spat in the 1700s and offer you better food...
Signed,
The Saner 1/3 of America
Where there is not a public safety concern, inmates should be given the occasional day pass to visit friends and family outside the prison, and return afterward. Likewise, they should be allowed to hold jobs outside the prison. Whenever possible and with no requirements on time served, they should be transitioned to parole in so far as the public safety risk is assessed to allow such transition. Parole fees must be abolished.
It's a political problem. No politician wants to risk being Willy Horton'd because of such a program; no matter how much sense reforms such as those might make. Even if the program ran smoothly they'd still fear the "(Insert politicians name and bad B&W photo) released thousands of convicted criminals into your neighbor hoods." ads.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
If that's how most people you know will react, you need to find a better group of people.
5) They did the crime, they should suffer. Also their spouse, girlfriend, kids, parents, siblings, and the rest of their clan to the 5th generation.
6) Gotta keep 'em poor somehow...
'Murika!
I have proposed a Constitutional Amendment including the below:
The purpose of law being to establish Justice and insure domestic Tranquility, the execution of law against an offense shall be to redress and rehabilitate.
To this purpose, and to the purpose of a fair and speedy trial, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except as necessary for the security of the public, and any such action shall to the greatest extent achievable respect the dignity of the person as human beings and ensure their individual needs are met and rights protected; and no bail shall be required except where other means are insufficient to the same purpose; and civil damages shall not be imposed in excess of those necessary to redress.
I'm also running for Congress.
Many of our local politicians and the people with whom I speak on the streets concur with the full implementation of the Nelson Mandela Rules and other reforms. It's actually surprising how strong many of my proposals are: collective risk sharing, strong immigration programs automatically extending expired visas where there is no compelling reason to revoke, a minimum wage policy that rises faster than inflation (even the small businesses like this), and a corporate income tax policy based on net operating profits all seem to have pretty decent buy-in. Conservatives, Republicans, Progressives, business owners, the unions, I've gotten decent response rates among all of these types.
Reforming our prisons will take a little public education. People are not so hot on having open prisons for certain prisoners; many are quite happy with allowing prisoners who seem to not produce a public safety risk to work real jobs outside prison, so long as they come back to prison at the end of their shifts. Full and heavy use of parole seems to get split results at a brush, but good responses in face-to-face discussions. Everyone seems to think prisoners should be treated with full respect and dignity, cared for as well as possible, and not really punished--except for some personal exceptions that a few folks voice now and then because they dislike a certain type of crime.
More parole, cooperative work programs, and open prisons give people an experience with felons as being just people they may meet on the streets. They're sympathetic to anyone who is trying to be better, and so they accept these things in principle as an individualized consideration, and become more hesitant as you broaden it to a general systemic policy. It's actually fairly easy to get people to push against their own reservations and throw their vote behind reform, because they expect these things to reduce crime in total and that's valuable to them even if they fear that some of those people won't be separated from them at a given point in time.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Fact of the matter is, that's how people on average react, and that's who he's referring to. You're probably upper-middle-class with an education, can see past the end of your own nose, and have upper-middle-class friends, who likewise have an education and can see past the end of their own noses; the 'average' person is not you or your friends, the 'average' person doesn't think enough moves ahead to really consider what the long-term effects of anything is, and they think with their emotions more often than not and not their intellect, so you get knee-jerk reactions to 'criminals' ("lock 'em up for good!"). Sad but true.
According to who? Sure it sounds like it should, but everything prison related tends to be expensive.
Expensive is relative. Making a trip out to see someone is prison is also expensive; for many it may involve a hotel stay and hours of driving.
It's pretty obvious that allowing for video calls allows for more contacts even if you factor in some other issues like expense. People can do daily or weekly visits where they might have only been able to go once a month.
You say I need to back up this blindingly obvious observation but then go and throw out your OPINION that everything prison related tends to be expensive with zero backing as to the video calling being particularity expensive compared to normal visitation costs. How about you back up your own accusations with facts first?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. You don't search them thoroughly. You search the inmate after the visit.
for the for profit prison industry. Stopping crime isn't their goal. Locking people up is. This is also why Marijuana will never be legalized so long as we have private prisons.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I absolutely understand those high risk car chases in the US
And why criminals would risk shooting the police. It's an insane idea that is almost certainly going to end badly, but if you have nothing to lose, then why not?
My best reason for supporting the death penalty is that should I ever become convicted of a capital crime, I would choose it over a life in prison. It is the cleanest and most humane option being offered.
It's the result of the way you dehumanize them in the prisons. There are plenty of examples of how to do it the right way, in Europe but also in the US. For a start, Americans could stop jokingly accepting prison rape as a means of punishment....
Pretty much.
There are three major classifications of criminals. The "video calls" are the ones you want to use for dangerous offenders.
The ones that are non-violent offenders (eg property crimes, car theft), there's no point to this, as it just makes things more expensive, for both the person in jail, and the operator of the jail. For the most part unless someone was convicted of a "data crime" (see next) you could just give people in the jail plastic cell phones and it wouldn't upset anything unless they start using them during "quiet" time.
The last category are "digital crimes", eg crimes where no physical property or people were harmed, but maybe a business went under, or insider trading, or something to that degree. These people you want to have no access to any tech what-so-ever. But escorting them to a private room that a guard just sits there hangs back is not an issue.
Lower middle class and poor or more likely to be in jail or know someone in jail. I think they have a much better handle on jail and it's effects than most people on the other end of the class spectrum.
I'm sure a TV show with all the model prisoners on display would be far more entertaining to watch.
There's never "zero doubt". Even DNA evidence can be cooked up -- see also the case of Annie Dookhan, a crime lab manager in Massachusetts who outright forged test results.
Also, dealing of marijuana as a capital crime? Come on. Why criminalize it at all if possession is legal? Let it be sold legally on the open market, same as cigarettes and alcohol.
Singapore is not a model the US should be emulation -- boring and authoritarian. I really don't care for having a perfectly safe, obedient society at the expense of our souls.
It all sounds ideal....until you actually have to deal with the type of people you actually have to deal with in prison.
In practice, this is what happens. You treat people like animals and they become animals; you treat them like decent people and they become decent people.
We've been changing the way prisons operate around the United States and the results are that magic shit that happen in Norway suddenly happens here.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
And for what it's worth lower middle class and poor are often enough lower middle class and poor because they're targeted by the police, the criminal judicial system, put into prison, then when they get out and have a criminal record, are excluded from opportunities that might allow them to elevate themselves out of being lower-middle-class or poor.
Wouldn't that be "governor-general" vs "president?"
This, you see the "nuke 'em from orbit with jail time" attitude most commonly among the middle class and above, and it seems to get worse as income goes up.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
No politician wants to risk being Willy Horton'd because of such a program
Mike Dukakis deserved to be Horton'd. Furloughs are a good idea to keep petty offenders socialized, and to help inmates nearing release to start reintegrating into society.
But giving furloughs to murderers serving life sentences, with a long history of violent offenses? Willie had robbed and murdered a man by stabbing him 19 times. Giving this guy a weekend pass was insane.
People also don't realize how horrible isolation, even the isolation of only being with other inmates, can be.
If given a choice between going back and something like being publicly paddled every day for the length of the incarceration but still being with normal people, I'd rather be publicly paddled. Actually, I think most if given a choice of a humane death after their first few months inside would choose a humane death.
Prison without normal human contact is inhumane.
The Space Merchants: Better a Thousand Innocent men suffer than One Guilty man go free.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Ideally in-person is better, but it's not practical on a frequent basis. What if the permitted video visits are more frequent in exchange for less in-person visits? Does the frequency offset the downsides of non-directness?
For example, is 25 hours of yearly video conferencing with family worse than 5 hours of in-person communication? Further, the in-person visits don't have to be cut to zero.
Table-ized A.I.
And when those small time offenders are released, they are excluded from jobs because of their criminal record. If there are fewer legal options to make money, these people will turn to crime again. And after they are caught, they will be locked up and - now that they're a repeat offender - will be much less likely to get a job when released again.
Unfortunately, too many people think "we need to be hard on crime" means "we need to make life miserable for all law breakers." (But not for the laws that they broke, of course. Those are minor things that should get a slap on the wrist at worst.) You can be "hard on crime" while still being compassionate towards criminals, especially non-violent criminals.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Good luck with that. I feel half the country is sliding further into the 1800's (and earlier) as political polarization intensifies. "The good ol' days are better" seems to be a constant theme of rural America. Trump used it successfully to imply he can bring factories and coal mining back, and reduce the number of outsiders who are allegedly polluting white evangelical culture.
The truth is the evangelicals are becoming ever more like the Taliban, who keep their jails small by executing those prosecuted for major crimes. I got modded to oblivion for making this claim before, but you are welcome to argue I'm wrong instead.
Table-ized A.I.
We can ship them off to a secure site and still allow some 'face time' with family members. Best of both worlds.
Have gnu, will travel.
Sorry, but only 7% of prisoners are in private prisons in the United States. It's a minor part of the system and certainly not a major driver of crime nor incarceration rates.
The war on drugs, on the other hand....
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Which prisons in the US, are the ones you speak of that have model citizens in the prison, no riots, no animalistic violent behaviors towards each other, no gang activity...etc.
Got some links?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
This is why you never go Full Authoritarian, it makes you attack stupid straw men to win stupid prizes.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Seriously, check your facts first. The very upper estimate for NK is literally a tiny fraction behind the CONFIRMED numbers for the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The United States has the largest prison population in the world, and the second-highest per-capita incarceration rate, behind Seychelles"
No politician wants to risk being Willy Horton'd because of such a program
Mike Dukakis deserved to be Horton'd. Furloughs are a good idea to keep petty offenders socialized, and to help inmates nearing release to start reintegrating into society.
But giving furloughs to murderers serving life sentences, with a long history of violent offenses? Willie had robbed and murdered a man by stabbing him 19 times. Giving this guy a weekend pass was insane.
True, but that won’t stop someone from running ads about “DANGEROUS CRIMINALS” no matter what is the reality; and the other person is forced to defend themselves. As a result, reform is a bipartisan issue, both sides agree it won’t happen.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
They charge like $2/minute for video conferencing, whereas in-person visits are free. Yep, the for-profit incarceration industry just transformed family visits into a profit center!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Geez. It's not like breaking the law is bad, it is simply disorderly. You got a lot hate and predjudice In you to be assuming just because they are a criminal they are bad. Or not entitled to try a carve out their own way of life. Crimes are bothing personal usually. It just happens to be out of protocol.
The American prison system. The best tool that politicians have to manage job statistics is to increase prison population and to hire more guards.
As we automate more jobs, it will become more and more important to decrease the unemployed through more creative methods. For nearly the past century, America has produced large numbers of jobs through fear, uncertainty and doubt. So long as the people of America are convince there is a necessity to do so, politicians have a more less carte blanc to produce jobs through FUD. Prisons are some of the best.
To manage the job statistics, it is necessary to accomplish two primary things.
1) Decrease the number of people eligible to be counted as unemployed.
2) Increase the number of jobs for the remaining number of people.
Here are some methods of decreasing the number of people counted as unemployed.
1) Get the killed
2) Imprison them.
The military has been traditionally very lucrative in the sense that we can send massive numbers of children to their deaths before they have the opportunity to reproduce in a means that produces American citizens eligible to be counted as part of the employment statistics. Not only that, but if we can't get them killed, maybe we can get them boom boom in Europe or somewhere else where they can settle down and procreate on some other country's dime.
Navy is far better than army, marines or air force since we can in a single stroke kill off hundreds or thousands of children, lose a ship and massive amounts of equipment and create tons of jobs in the name of national security to create more ships, planes, equipment, etc... as a replacement. The army and marines are a nightmare since you don't have any great direct profit from getting your children killed one by one unless they get blown up in a ground vehicle like a bus or tank which will need to be replaced.
Prisons are a fantastic means of removing people from the employment statistics. If you send a person to prison, they are no longer counted as unemployed and the massive number of jobs created by sending them to prison is well worth it. All that matters is that you have to convince the American people they are safer paying to lock this person up and place them on extremely expensive welfare than to let them run lose and be in far less expensive welfare. This means however that we need to selectively choose people who we believe will be more profitable to the system as progressively hardening criminals as opposed to tax payers.
For example, if you're a wealthy male in his prime, locking that person up for more than a year or two, even if they commit a mass murder is not profitable. It shouldn't be done.
On the other hand, taking a kid from a family in the ghettos with two parents collecting welfare and generally low grades, unless you can get them to join the military as canon fodder, it's far more profitable to sentence him/her for 10 years for possession of a joint than to risk them simply collecting welfare or working a minimum wage job.
A beautiful thing is that if you convince some sucker that he could be a hero by being canon fodder and they don't die, they can come back with PTSD and knock over a 7-Eleven, kill off some minimum wage worker leaving a job open for someone else and then go to super-max which is nothing but bank for the job statistics.
See prisons are absolutely amazing because as long as the American people are scared of criminals and especially as long as we focus A LOT of effort on penalizing them as opposed to correcting them, we can increase the general temper of the American people allowing us to spend even more money on prisons and then even stress other areas of the economy causing more people to commit crimes, leave jobs open for others, be removed from the employment statistics and create jobs for others.
Consider that prisoners require prisons.
Prisons require guards.
Prisons built in or near former coal towns tak
If you treat people as animals long enough and give them no way to leave, they will live down to that. Further, they will learn well that society as a whole is brutish, hateful, and their enemy. Making them live down to that for years and then tossing them out on the streets is the dumbest possible approach to crime.
It's right up there with abusing a large dog for years and then sending it to "play" with your kids.
Given drugs are reputedly easier to acquire in prison than they are outside, is that really a serious concern?
What the fuck is a race bait dog whistle anyway? Could you perhaps try explaining this in English?
Then follow up by telling us why the post to which you replied qualifies, because I'm totally fucking lost here.
Oh Bullshit. The same lack of impulse control leads to poverty and prison.
This is what entitled Rich White People actually believe.
Oh boy are you ever in for a ride awakening.
Lack of impulse control leads to poverty and prison.
OK, now, as the nail sticking up the highest, explain "negative amounts of impulse control" Trump.
And he has not learned any, has he.
If your theory was correct, he would be the poorest of the poor.
He has connections and started with money and has had a lot of luck.
Lack of impulse control is a negative thing. Lack of opportunity ( structural issues ), parents, luck, so many things weigh in. But, in order to feel OK about your luck/advantages/fortune/etc, you have to make it "their fault".
emt 377 emt 4
ThreeADay means you too, citizen.
Please log in so that your voice can be heard. Judging by this comment, it is worth hearing. Throwaway email accounts are a dime a dozen, and I'll mail you a dime if necessary.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Because we recognize marriage and that people have needs.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now look, you've got to stop people from hurting people. There are better ways than locking them up in a lot of cases, but let's just say you need to lock up the people who are actively harming others. There's still a lot of other people who are being deprived of their need for freedom without just cause.
We really don't recognize that people have needs. That's not part of this. It's pure and simply an unconstitutional recognition of a religion. Western marriage law descends from Christian tradition (which in turn is based on Greco-Roman law regarding the inheritance of property and the care of children) which is why it takes a political battle to recognize marriages which are not between one man and one woman.
I have no clue if these visits are allowed outside of marriage but I think they are. They were allowed (permitted) when I was dating a sheriff. She told me too many stories about the dramas that would go on in Bexar County jails.
It varies from state to state, and conjugal visits are not permitted in federal prison. According to WP, only "California, Connecticut, New York and Washington" currently permit conjugal visits.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
My best reason for supporting the death penalty is that should I ever become convicted of a capital crime, I would choose it over a life in prison. It is the cleanest and most humane option being offered.
Catch-22; if you act like you want the death penalty, they'll lock you up in a hospital for the criminally insane, where you want to be even less than prison.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Ok, but good luck getting guards to work there. Your second paragraph comes close to a recitation of some of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' program statement on prison administration. So, that's technically what we have right now! Yay!
The problem in the prisons is not the words, it's the culture.
It is even worse than that, I think.
Let's consider a guy.
He gets caught growing and selling pot. He gets 5 years, does 3, then he's on probation (although some states he gets a slap on the wrist, it depends). Can't get a job, hard to get a girl without money, he's living at risk.
Decides to take a risk and starts a little cocaine business, really just to support himself while he tries to find a sustainable path to legitimate income. Keeps it small, keeps his head down, until one of his customers gets arrested for something else and rats him out. Now it's federal and he gets 10 years, does a little over 8 inside.
Now he's stuck. He's on federal supervised release (probation) and his probation officer calls every company that gives him a job to make sure he's doing OK. This freaks the management out, and he can't keep a job. Maybe he's getting food stamps, maybe rental assistance, maybe he has access to medical care, maybe not.
He's been out of society for almost a decade, it's hard for him to talk to 'normal' people. (On a side note, I got locked up in 2007 a couple of months before the iPhone came out. When I was released in 2016 I had literally never touched a smartphone, or seen one up close. Imagine the readjustment.) He can't relax, he feels like he is in a slow motion car crash, all the time. So, he makes another bad decision. He's probably not really a bad guy. He just can't see the way forward.
He tries to pull a robbery, just to get enough cash to get some breathing room. He just needs some time. So, he goes for it. But then a cop shows up. Does he surrender, or does he shoot it out?
He's a three time loser, now. He'll probably get a career offender charge, he's looking at 15 years minimum. He won't go back to a Low security facility, probably start at a Medium. Way more violent. More gangs.
And he's tired. He's tired of the stress, he's tired of people he can't talk to or relax around, he's tired of being afraid of people finding out that he's a criminal, he's tired of being threatened by his PO. He's tired of being a loser.
What's he got to lose?
I think we would do well to consider how we are incentivizing his behavior.
I would just like to point out that they don't make National Geographic specials about all of the prisons where all that shit never happens. They make them about the warrior academies and the zoos. Please don't mistake that for the norm. Many of the prisoners at my prison would watch those same specials in awe and disgust.
LSCI Allenwood
FMC Butner
FMC Lexington
Basically all of the Federal Minimum Security Facilities
In the Feds, almost everybody has a job. Some of them are regular factory jobs, some are scrubbing showers every day, some are shoveling snow for 12 hours a year.
Most people who do not want to work just try to get into one of the jobs that has extremely low utilization (like the snow job mentioned above). All jobs are compensated, although poorly. Our kitchen workers averaged about $30 / month, except for the actual cooks who made around $75 - $100 / month. In the factory we had guys coming close to $1000 / month during the busy season. I maxed out at about $800, but half of that was taken as restitution, so I kept about $400 / month.
A single guy who refuses to work will get a 'shot' (disciplinary report) for 'Failing to Program" and face an escalating series of punishments. First he loses the ability to buy stuff at the commissary. Then he gets put in a bad cube / cell. Then he starts getting thrown in the SHU (Special Housing Unit - AKA the 'hole'). Then they start taking good time away from him, which actually extends his prison sentence. In the Feds you can earn good time to reduce your sentence by about 13%. In the worst case they could transfer him to some other, shittier, more violent prison.
A group of guys who refuse to work is considered a 'strike'. They will immediately lose all privileges and then good time. Then they will all be transferred to different places, and they'll be lucky not to catch an additional charge for rioting or inciting riot.
The inmates outnumber the guards until something happens. Then a bunch of other guards show up armed with clubs, tasers, and teargas. This why you only hear about riots where guards and staff are taken hostage. This is the only thing that holds back the guys with the clubs.
People do not realize that not all that are in prison are harcore criminals
They are still criminals who committed crimes and are confined as punishment. Giving them all the comforts of home and freedom removes the punishment.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Are you saying that if someone does the crime but isn't a hardcore criminal, that person shouldn't be punished? Because that is what it sounds like you are saying.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
To this purpose, and to the purpose of a fair and speedy trial, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except as necessary for the security of the public
And, who determines what is necessary for the security of the public? What if the government decided that putting all Muslims in concentration camps was necessary for the security of the public while to the greatest extent achievable respect the dignity of the person as human beings and ensure their individual needs are met and rights protected. Remember, the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few.
no bail shall be required except where other means are insufficient to the same purpose
Bail is imposed to ensure the criminal actually shows up for court. How are you going to ensure they show up for court? Failure to answer shows you have not thought this through.
People are not so hot on having open prisons for certain prisoners;
The purpose of prisons is to confine as punishment. You are saying let's take away the confinement part of the punishment.
You seem to be quite an idiot. Do you have an experience in criminal justice and with criminals? Do you have any qualifications in criminal justice? Do you have any qualifications at all?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
North Dakota's prisons had solitary confinement counts in the triple digits in 2016. Today, the entire state has three people in solitary, maybe; they don't stay there very long anyway. They've got folks who will punch you in the face for looking at them, except those folks are now trying to control themselves and have been gushing at counselors because they want to fit in and everybody else is happy and friendly.
There are some of these out in California and scattered around the country elsewhere, in a few cities; North Dakota is the big one: the whole state is on board. Their crime numbers doubled two years in a row and they decided they didn't want the state to turn into one giant Baltimore City by 2020.
Baltimore, MD: 7,600 population per square mile. Bismarck, ND: 2,650 per square mile. Carroll County, MD: 373 per square mile.
North Dakota's JRA went into effect in April, 2017. We won't have decent metrics until 2020; I've had to pry information out of their DRC by the usual method of finding contacts with high degrees of interest in their jobs and asking them to talk about themselves.
Other nations have done the same, although the usual response we hear from Americans is that their criminals are "different" and "don't have the same instinct" or some such nonsense. When North Dakota's metrics start showing change, people will start telling folks that North Dakota is a "different sort of place than Detroit or Baltimore", and that "those sort of criminals just don't exist in a rural state like that", never mind that DRC has locked up 366 violent non-sexual offenders, 98 sexual offenders, and 738 drug and alcohol offenders out of a total 1,614 new inmates admitted (Maryland admitted 11,000 new inmates in 2013 and has not since published statistics). In North Dakota, 29% of inmates admitted in 2017 were violent and sexual offenders, and 48% are drug and alcohol offenders; these aren't disorderly bumpkins who got sent to jail for a week.
Other statistics: North Dakota had 7,204 people in community supervision (parole, probation, etc.) in 2017, and 1,723 in prisons. Maryland in 2013 had 61,882 in community supervision.
These people come out of prison eventually; most folks seem fairly keen on not having them repeat the same sorts of heinous crimes that got them there in the first place. In Maryland, we have a huge population in both prison and community supervision; it costs a lot of money, and represents a volatile criminal element which just comes back to commit more crimes. We can't really lose out by changing our approach to rehabilitate instead of punish, which makes the argument a lot easier when people refuse to believe the evidence.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Been arrested (for something I very much did and was guilty of).
Every time I've been stopped by the police, whether it's "fair" or not, I've been polite, respectful, and calm. ANY OTHER RESPONSE AND YOU'RE AN IDIOT. Maybe you think you're entitled to mouth off?
What's the most amusing is that your entire post/rage is about shit you're imagining. Do you have any idea how delusional that is?
Then again, AC, maybe you do.
-Styopa
who determines what is necessary for the security of the public?
Ultimately, SCOTUS. We actually built our Nation to sort of work things out without having rigid, clear rules.
Failure to answer shows you have not thought this through.
Actually, I live in a state where the Courts ruled that alternatives to cash bail are constitutionally-required wherever possible and reasonable. Predictably, my state has had some issues with the recent development: the number of defendants who don't show up to trial increased from 10% to 14%.
Washington DC has been doing this for a lot longer--over 45 years, in fact. Their Pretrial Services Agency uses a risk-based model determining the public safety risk and the flight risk of the defendant. They actually release 80% of all defendants in DC under their own recognizance, and only 10% fail to appear for any scheduled court date, while only 9% are arrested between pretrial release and their court date. Cash bail is still legal--you'll notice I used an "except where" clause--and imposed almost never.
In other words: DC is a hell of a lot better at this than Maryland.
The purpose of prisons is to confine as punishment.
The purpose of prisons is to reduce crime. To that purpose, rehabilitation is the goal, not punishment.
You are saying let's take away the confinement part of the punishment.
Open prisons don't eliminate confinement; they establish trust. Inmates whom we believe are able to manage themselves are placed in an environment in which they have to exercise that capacity and thus essentially reinforce a behavior of not violating the trust society places with them. They're not allowed to leave.
This of course requires careful selection of inmates who we can reasonably expect to not attempt escape; and the results have been shown with the Bollate prison, among others They also seem to be more likely to get jobs after prison, but the research does not rule out other factors contributing to that particular outcome.
Spending one more year at the rehabilitating prison (and one less year at an ordinary one) reduces recidivism by between 10 and 15 percentage points (from a mean recidivism of about 40 percent). For the group of displaced inmates, which is shown to be negatively selected, the effects of rehabilitation efforts on recidivism are larger.
While we find evidence that over time Bollate inmates become more likely to work outside the prison, more than a single mechanism seem to underly these effects.
You seem to be quite an idiot.
Perhaps your world-view is deficient and excludes particular information of which I am aware.
Do you have an experience in criminal justice and with criminals? Do you have any qualifications in criminal justice? Do you have any qualifications at all?
I have a tendency to rely on subject matter experts--a habit reinforced by my study in project management--and have interviewed several, including prison guards with multiple degrees in social services. I've also examined current research from all over the world.
Persons whom I've interviewed and who have confirmed the things I've suggested here include the Director of Corrections of North Dakota, who is a member of several international programs which hold conferences, exchange metrics, and perform scientific analysis of competing factors and their outcomes in corrections systems (pretrial, parole, prison, and post-incarceration); social workers who have worked closely with the prison population in post-release services and within jails and prisons; and prison guards, including those with degrees in both social work and criminal justice.
One prison guard I spoke with concurred with my appr
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I have a tendency to rely on subject matter experts--a habit reinforced by my study in project management--and have interviewed several, including prison guards with multiple degrees in social services. I've also examined current research from all over the world
>In other words no, you have no idea about anything involved in the criminal justice system and have never associated with actual criminals. You have read articles and talked to people who, after years of pushing the idea that criminals had low self-esteem, were shocked to find out criminals have at least average and usually extremely high self-esteem when criminals were actually examined.
You have surrounded yourself with yes men and people who share your views and are claiming to be fully informed. You are truly a politician.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
In other words no, you have no idea about anything involved in the criminal justice system and have never associated with actual criminals.
Actually, I've met and engaged with plenty of released felons, current heroin addicts, and others with criminal history. I've done volunteer work with OutForJustice, which in Baltimore is headed by Nicole Hanson, who was herself incarcerated for felony crimes for a little while. Rikki Vaughn, a candidate for Senate running against Ben Cardin in Maryland's 2018 primary election, was incarcerated for felony crimes when he was 18 and went on to be homeless for a time. These are real people who have been part of the prison population, not just an interloper like myself who's peeked in to see what's going on in there.
I've also dealt with both defense lawyers and prosecutors, as well as district judges, county clerks, and others who see the process of moving people from arrest to sentencing. They've developed an understanding of systemic problems and behavioral motivations due to their own stations.
Your assertion seems like only a convicted felon who has lived through brutal treatment, been a prosecutor, been a clerk, been a judge, been a prison guard, and formed your own conclusions could possibly understand what's happening. How many people in the world fit that profile?
You have read articles and talked to people who, after years of pushing the idea that criminals had low self-esteem, were shocked to find out criminals have at least average and usually extremely high self-esteem when criminals were actually examined.
I've read scientific papers and spoken with subject matter experts who have used metrics and numerical analysis to figure out what's actually happening in the world around them, as well as people in the field who have seen the results of various systems and can volunteer anecdotal observations.
You have surrounded yourself with yes men and people who share your views and are claiming to be fully informed.
I appear to be better-informed than you. What evidence have you got to support your conclusions?
Support my political activism on Patreon.