Jails Are Replacing Visits With Video Calls (arstechnica.com) 194
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.
Family visits reduce recidivism (Score:5, Informative)
So video is better because can be more frequent (Score:2)
Video calling allows for much more frequent contact, so according to your study prisoners would be better off using the video system.
Re:So video is better because can be more frequent (Score:5, Insightful)
They'd be better off using both, to be honest. Video is not a replacement for friendly human contact in person. All other in-perosn human contact in a prison (with jailers, other inmates) is likely to be abusive.
A good way to warp someone's mind is to only allow them abusive/coersive human contact.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah it would've been best if this was in addition to regular visits. I would bet that it would reduce in-person meetings a bit as well since they're a pain in the ass. E.g. instead of weekly visitation, do video calls a few times a week and in-person every other week or so. Would be a win-win for everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
E.g. instead of weekly visitation, do video calls a few times a week and in-person every other week or so. Would be a win-win for everyone.
They are not looking for "win-win". They are looking for lowering costs and to charge monopoly-based prices.
They used to have costs of $14/minute [cnn.com] until an attempt to cap at 11c-22c minute. Which apparently failed, at least based on the CNN article.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
* - That must be how, Slashdot thought my less than was an opening HTML bracket and just truncated until the line break tag when it didn't find a close.
Re: (Score:2)
Use the entity: Type < to get an <
Re: (Score:3)
According to who? Sure it sounds like it should, but everything prison related tends to be expensive.
So if you are going to make the claim it allows for more frequent contact then you had better back it up with facts.
It obviously allows for more contact (Score:2)
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 ob
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they or their families can afford it. Note that the for-profit prisons see it primarily as a new revenue source, not a necessary service to fulfill their contracts.
Re:Family visits reduce recidivism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Family visits reduce recidivism (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you don't bother reducing recidivism, you can make the case that "once a criminal, always a criminal." Then, you push for harsher sentencing and longer jail times. This results in more people in prison, more profits for those private prisons, and more votes for those "tough on crime" politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Recidivism is not about the criminal or the prison or the POS corporations that run prison, RECIDIVISM IS ABOUT FUTURE VICTIMS, or more specifically they lack of them. The corporations that run prisons don't want to be talking about that because they love recidivism more profit but of course, privatise the profits and socialise the losses. The losses in this case, more fucking victims of crimes, completely unnecessary victims of crimes but of course their suffering means more fucking corporate profits. Reci
Re: (Score:2)
That's a well known scientific truth, but focusing on long term rehabilitation requires cultural progress.
First of all it has to be recognised as long term investment: if all you care is the next financial quarter, how a released inmate will fare 10 years down the line is basically never going to be on the radar.
Second, but not least important: focus has to switch away from punishment and revenge.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is we treat adults like children.
As people mature deterrents become less effective.
If as a teenager you get ticketed for speeding over 10mph past the limit, then chances are you will not be speeding after that. If you didn't get caught and 5-10 year of maturity, you are still speeding 10mph past the limit and you finally get a ticket, you will not assume that you did anything wrong, but it was the police who was just being a jerk, and the City is just using this as an excuse to get extra revenu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reduced recidivism reduces profits (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You know that prisoners can be forced to work, right?
The Thirteenth Amendment has an exception for people being punished for a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Easier said than done, but MAKE the prisons show their colors. Make them act like slavers so the public can see the ugliness of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Easier said than done, but MAKE the prisons show their colors. Make them act like slavers
They are already acting like slavers. Make waves and they'll change your cellmate to someone who will blow out your O-Ring.
so the public can see the ugliness of it.
There is one and only one way that the public will give one tenth of one fuck about the ugliness of it, and that's if it happens to a famous beautiful person who somehow manages to stay beautiful through the process and then goes on to star in some piece of media about how bad it is.
Maybe if we permit the #metoo movement to succeed (and even assist it as necessary) then we will work our
Working in prison (Score:2)
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 $10
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
client attorney privilege (Score:2)
You still have the right to an unmonitored attorney vist.
Re: (Score:2)
But what if your attorney is in a different cell block? Asking for a friend who happens to be a very stable genius with the best words.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well I think the judge will take a very dim view of them trying to use anything from an legal visit in court against you. and IF not you must acquit!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You still have the right to an unmonitored attorney vist.
Most people don't have a lawyer in the family. More's the pity, really; most ventures require one, and finding an honest one is the devil's own work.
In before ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus was once asked which of the commandments was the most important.
If the United States is more religious, Christian, and/or devout than compared to Europe, how to they reflect this in the two commandments Jesus identified? (For reference, it's "love God" instead of being infatuated with Him, and "love your
Forrest for the trees (Score:2)
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 al
Re: (Score:2)
Also, they're doing this at facilities where there is no contact, visitors being separated by glass. So hardly about security there. Unlikely security is the primary concern elsewhere; the kickbacks will greatly
The video connection ... (Score:2)
... opens the door for casing the joint before grabbing all the shit.
Think Equifax is porous?
Bad jails cause rebellion (Score:4, Informative)
Profit center (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:Profit center (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that they monitor those calls? Just so the gang leaders can't continue to run their empires from behind bars. Or the tweakers can't arrange the next delivery with their supplier. There is a cost associated with that.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't choose to go to jail (philosophical issues about committing the crime aside) so you don't get charged for it. You make a call, that's your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
And, from what I've heard from prisoners, the video quality stinks. Think bad webcam over dial-up connection bad. So you're paying a premium price for a video call when what you're getting only just barely qualifies as "a video call." Yes, they could easily use better equipment, but that'd cut into the profits and we can't have that!
Devil's Island (Score:2)
We can ship them off to a secure site and still allow some 'face time' with family members. Best of both worlds.
Obvious reason why (Score:2)
Stupid idea for the economy (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 l
Re:And what about conjugal visits? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If that's how most people you know will react, you need to find a better group of people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:And what about conjugal visits? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:And what about conjugal visits? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:And what about conjugal visits? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 Service
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Reminds me of a line from Fred Pohl's (Score:2)
How to run prisons (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why you never go Full Authoritarian, it makes you attack stupid straw men to win stupid prizes.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com... [huffingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given drugs are reputedly easier to acquire in prison than they are outside, is that really a serious concern?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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 huma
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Repeat offenders (Score:2)
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 arre
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:And what about conjugal visits? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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 [youtube.com]. 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
examples (Score:2)
LSCI Allenwood
FMC Butner
FMC Lexington
Basically all of the Federal Minimum Security Facilities
Re: (Score:2)
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.
As a guy who spent 9 and a half years inside (Score:2)
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.
Re:Reform prisons (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Reform prisons (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Something like 5% of the US population has spent a night in jail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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....
Re: (Score:2)
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/... [wikipedia.org]
"The United States has the largest prison population in the world, and the second-highest per-capita incarceration rate, behind Seychelles"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 e
Re: (Score:3)
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.