The hidden costs in a “no-cost” tablet contract
prisonpolicy.org
prisonpolicy.org
I don't think Assemblyman Steve Hawley (R) is being stupid when he's asking "why can't we get "free" tablets for students, too?" I think he's in on it. That's the simplest answer.
Steve Hawley probably didn't get his beak wet, and it annoys him. Which is why he dares to ask any questions at all.
Anyway, you could reread the article to remind yourself that the question in the headline is answered in the article. The tablets are subsidized by software and services offered through the device, like an Amazon Fire. (But the services are terrible.)
This is simply a case of a private company shifting costs from the government budget to oppressed and exploited citizens. No "personal" corruption is necessary to explain the situation.
https://hbr.org/2008/04/the-four-things-a-service-business-m...
This is the main reason why large free service companies have products to sell, and then people who understand do not usually like.
“Inmates hacked prison tablets to steal $225,000 for apps and music”
https://www.slashgear.com/inmates-hacked-prison-tablets-to-s...
JPay and the people behind it deserve to burn.
What I mean is is there some service that they only have available via the tablets and not some other means? Paper letter vs email, video chat vs in person visit, &etc...
The services you mentioned are okay, but having a state-approved monopoly over essential services is not okay.
More or less, yes.
Services like JPay are frequently used in the prison system to replace existing systems, not just to supplant them. It may be made the only way to deposit money into the prison commissary, for instance. Or the availability of video chat through JPay may be used as an excuse to limit the availability of in-person visits. And so on.
https://blog.ycombinator.com/pigeon-dot-ly-yc-w15-a-startup-...
https://techcrunch.com/2015/03/24/pigeon-ly/
Pigeon.ly's creator is an ex-convict who served 4 years of prison time for marijuana business. His first-hand experiences with the cost of telecommunication services is apparently what sparked his startup idea:
> One of these ideas was a way to make prison calls cheaper. There are only a couple of companies that handle the vast majority of communications in and out of prisons because messages and letters need to be carefully screened. Because of this market concentration among players like Securus and JPay, it means that prisoners — who are already vulnerable and often lower-income — get gouged.
> Three hundred minutes can cost $70.
> “While I was there, my eyes really started opening up. I started noticing how grossly inefficient everything was,” he said. “I thought, I know I can solve this problem. This is a real market.”
> family in prison
Too many people have no compassion for prisoner, so it's important emphasizing that exploitation of prisoners rolls over into exploitation of innocent family members.
We need to elect politicians that recognize the horrors inflicted upon incarcerated folks and their families and provide communication with family as a cheaply-provided right, not as a strange sub-contracted service provided within the silly prison economy.
I mean, sure, good on JPay; but the interesting details are mostly absent.
EDIT: I don't know what you people are thinking, but I'm not trolling. These are sincerely my beliefs.
The secondary factors of relevance are: hardware sales, the increasing use of mobile/tablet computers, the impact of private contractors on the cost of government, and interesting/controversial pricing schemes.
Now, HN isn't supposed to be political. This is where the tech angle comes in. The stuff about using free devices to peddle services. In this specific case, there is a state sanctioned monopoly that exacerbates the issue. Note that some of these services supplant others; meaning that inmates don't have alternatives.
We don't have the kind and extent of unjust laws that would give me the ability to care one iota about people who are stupid, desperate or boneheaded enough to break them.
> Now, HN isn't supposed to be political. This is where the tech angle comes in. The stuff about using free devices to peddle services. In this specific case, there is a state sanctioned monopoly that exacerbates the issue. Note that some of these services supplant others; meaning that inmates don't have alternatives.
Right, that's the beauty of it all, but the article buries it in the midst of a bunch of humanitarian bullshit. (pardon the pleonasm)
Just because someone broke a law doesn't mean they should lose all of their rights. The reason for various levels of penalty (from a fine, to some prison time, to life in prison, to execution) is so the penalty can be proportionate to the crime. By extending your reasoning, one might conclude it is fine to execute every single prisoner. After all, they are criminals. I have heard people say that prison rape isn't a bad thing, because those getting raped are criminals anyway. Do you agree with that?
All of this ignores the more practical matter of reintegration upon release and the message we are sending to the loved ones of prisoners. If the systems society has set up were exploiting them, can we really expect them to then have faith that trying to work with society will help? The same goes for their loved ones. They see the same unfairness in the system, will they feel like society is fair? like it pays to do what society wants?
The victims being criminals makes the "is it a bad thing?" question all-but-irrelevant. I would have thought that obvious.
> All of this ignores the more practical matter of reintegration upon release and the message we are sending to the loved ones of prisoners. If the systems society has set up were exploiting them, can we really expect them to then have faith that trying to work with society will help? The same goes for their loved ones. They see the same unfairness in the system, will they feel like society is fair? like it pays to do what society wants?
It is unnecessary to make people feel like it pays to do what society wants (as true as that may be), as long as they feel like it hurts to do what society abhors.
So summary execution of every criminal ever would be fine?
I really don't follow your reasoning here. You seem to hold that criminals are essentially not human, and not due any consideration. If so, I don't see us coming to a resolution.