Slashdot Mirror
More Jails Replace In-Person Visits With Awful Video Chat Products
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: After April 15, inmates at the Adult Detention Center in Lowndes County, Mississippi will no longer be allowed to visit with family members face to face. Newton County, Missouri, implemented an in-person visitor ban last month. The Allen County Jail in Indiana phased out in-person visits earlier this year. All three changes are part of a nationwide trend toward "video visitation" services. Instead of seeing their loved ones face to face, inmates are increasingly limited to talking to them through video terminals. Most jails give family members a choice between using video terminals at the jail -- which are free -- or paying fees to make calls from home using a PC or mobile device.
Even some advocates of the change admit that it has downsides for inmates and their families. Ryan Rickert, jail administrator at the Lowndes County Adult Detention Center, acknowledged to The Commercial Dispatch that inmates were disappointed they wouldn't get to see family members anymore. Advocates of this approach point to an upside for families: they can now make video calls to loved ones from home instead of having to physically travel to the jail. These services are ludicrously expensive. Video calls cost 40 cents per minute in Newton County, 50 cents per minute in Lowndes County, and $10 per call in Allen County. Outside of prison, of course, video calls on Skype or FaceTime are free. These "visitation" services are often "grainy and jerky, periodically freezing up altogether," reports Ars. As for why so many jails are adopting them, it has a lot to do with money. "In-person visits are labor intensive. Prison guards need to escort inmates to and from visitation rooms, supervise the visits, and in some cases pat down visitors for contraband. In contrast, video terminals can be installed inside each cell block, minimizing the need to move inmates around the jail." The video-visitation systems also directly generate revenue for jails.
Even some advocates of the change admit that it has downsides for inmates and their families. Ryan Rickert, jail administrator at the Lowndes County Adult Detention Center, acknowledged to The Commercial Dispatch that inmates were disappointed they wouldn't get to see family members anymore. Advocates of this approach point to an upside for families: they can now make video calls to loved ones from home instead of having to physically travel to the jail. These services are ludicrously expensive. Video calls cost 40 cents per minute in Newton County, 50 cents per minute in Lowndes County, and $10 per call in Allen County. Outside of prison, of course, video calls on Skype or FaceTime are free. These "visitation" services are often "grainy and jerky, periodically freezing up altogether," reports Ars. As for why so many jails are adopting them, it has a lot to do with money. "In-person visits are labor intensive. Prison guards need to escort inmates to and from visitation rooms, supervise the visits, and in some cases pat down visitors for contraband. In contrast, video terminals can be installed inside each cell block, minimizing the need to move inmates around the jail." The video-visitation systems also directly generate revenue for jails.
attorneys still get real vists
Recidivism rates are highly impacted by the inmates support and contact with family and friends. This is likely a secondary factor of why the prisons want to move to no in person visits. Private prisons have a serious issue in, the companies actually benefit from increased crime and greater offenses (ensuring a longer stay). It's pretty sad, we really need to regulate the prison system or just nationalize it, but way too many would fight the idea because they feel the tax payers shouldn't shoulder the burden (even though we already do simply because we are paying the prison companies' contracts) or fight any laws regulating businesses...
Not sure if replying to a troll with that name and response. I'll assume harvesting organs is in jest.
The reason we don't charge them for their time is because of the principal-agent problem
And because debtor's prisons are usually considered to be effectively unlawful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem
By benefiting from the labor, while charging for expenses, we create and subsidize a moral hazard in which we're incentivized to imprison an effectively infinite portion of the populace -- for all eternity. Prisons have no incentive to keep costs down, or to pay fair wages, or even wages that relate to costs given any situation where they or society are capable of profiting from prison labor.
They're convicted criminals, not cattle.
The 13th amendment had a very clear exemption called out for convicts.
The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted , shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Enslaving convicts is totally constitutional in the US
**Life is too short to be serious**
Criminal lawyer here. This isn't surprising, it's mission creep.
The vast majority of county jails already use sponsored VOIP calling systems. And they too are AWFUL. A 10 - 15 minute phone call will cost $20. The audio quality sucks. It sounds far away, it has popping sounds. It randomly disconnects.
And it was only a matter of time before the vultures came up with ways to further infiltrate the jails.
There is no technical reason why it should cost as much as it does. The reason is because the vendors give revenue kickbacks to the counties. Additionally they give subsidies to the jails in the form of free equipment. What they don't do is upgrade the ISP. Jails are still technologically low tech places and many (especially in rural areas) have bare minimum internet connections that are quickly saturated by even a few video sessions.
This is exploitation and revenue generation from a desperate and generally poor population.