Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by kgwxd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

kgwxd

No cut is reasonable.

View on HN

Presumably the prison is providing the "office" where the person works from, the Internet connection, etc.

Also food and accomodation ..

1) How is this different from any other prisoner

2) They wouldn't have to if they didn't insist on locking him up

It isn't different from any other prisoner. In many states you leave prison owing them back rent. Maine at least charges as a percentage of the prisoners income, rather than having them build debt.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/04/1084452251/the-vast-majority-...

Maine: https://www.corrections1.com/finance-and-budgets/maine-lawma... "the state can deduct up to 20% of their income — 10% for room and board, which is sent to the state’s general fund, not the Department of Corrections , and up to 10% to cover transportation provided by the department. Since 2020, the state fund has collected a total of $2.4 million.

They need money to pay for oversight. Any time prisoners talk to someone on the outside, it's a potential conduit for contraband or organized crime.

The exact same is true of people working outside of prison.

I think it's reasonable to assume an additional risk for people in prison.

Even though the enrolled people are completely trustworthy, doing this prevents untrustworthy people to simulate interest in the program just to be able to contact the external world for illegal activities.

Not really, contraband includes many things that are completely legal for non prisoners to have like currency, phones, knives, or alcohol. Sending that stuff to prisoners is illegal https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1791

List of prohibited items: https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840...

You can send phones, knives or alcohol via email or slack?

You can agree to pay for them at a given prices via email or slack. It’s more or less guaranteed that contraband will get into prisons if someone is willing to pay for it. Thus the rules around no cash or phones for prisoners.

Inmates are treated very differently by the legal system than regular people. Thirteenth Amendment: “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”

You can also do that via a butt phone, which are everywhere.

That heavily depends on the facility. Phones aren’t that difficult to track down as a radio device, but such efforts are rare.

Good point, in that case, let’s open it up and let it be a free for all. May as well let them take the drugs in through the front door, while we’re at it.

Of all the things to be concerned about you picked drugs?

I’m just using it to point out the stupidity of your argument. Don’t think too deeply about it, you might hurt yourself.

Shame this account doesn't have the flag button unlocked yet, because you deserve it. Maybe go read the HN guidelines?

Maybe check them yourself? I see nothing but sealioning in your line of questions.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Instead of waving around vague accusations how about you say what you mean?

“Sealioning is a form of online trolling where someone persistently asks insincere questions to provoke frustration, all while pretending to engage in a civil debate.“

That’s about as direct an accusation as it gets.

Sounds like you and the other commenter are trying to troll me into saying something inappropriate. Nice try, though.

Not Retric, no. He just gave the definition, and noted that scott_w was essentially accusing you.

People working outside pay rent. From a third to upto half their salary.

"No cut" is reasonable, but also "Some cut" is reasonable. However while arguing that "no cut" should be mandatory is reasonable, given that "no cut" would itself be reasonable, it is probably not pragmatic. Therefore in order to best support this kind of thing one should determine exactly how much "some cut" should be.

Isn't this largely just a one off situation that happened to work out? I doubt there will be legions of prisoners working remotely. If that future did come to be, it would be rather dystopian imo.

More dystopian than people in prison not being able to prepare themselves for a life outside?

The moral hazard is rather high. At the limit, the entire white-collar work force is wrongfully imprisoned, working for slave wages.

. . . ok.

Perhaps it'd be an interesting SFF novel.

if, right now, it is not dystopian, then there is no reason to say it would inevitably be dystopian if there were multiple occurrences, although sure, I expect it probably would be considering what the world is like. Of course I am the last person who one would expect to say it but - there is always hope.

I disagree. The cut should support the program itself and then further offset taxpayer expenses related to housing, feeding, and caring for the prisoner. I could even see a case for taking it as a way of ensuring it was saved and returned at release.

Fuck no! Lowering the cost of keeping people in prison would make it even easier for the government to lock people up for smaller crimes and with bigger sentences. It's even worse with the privatised prison system that the US has. They already know the "market price" (what the government is willing to spend) so adding "free money" into the equation just makes it easier for them to raise prices and end up pocketing even more money than they already do.

Framing it as offsetting the cost would also make it very easy to increase the cut, bit by bit, until it gets to a truly unreasonable level. And since the person is already in prison and we have to pay for them no matter what, why would they choose to work if the deal is so bad?

It's even worse with the privatised prison system that the US has.

This is a state by state thing. FWIW in this case, ME doesn't have private prisons. I don't bring this up to imply everything related to their cut is on the up and up, however, I believe Maine is very much incentivized to make this a useful program in terms of keeping people from returning to jail (as opposed to squeezing every dollar from the prisoners).

Fix the problem then, don't perpetuate it. If you think the problem is corrupt and profiteering prisons that will turn to this type of shenanigans, there's a bigger problem to fix.

Don't you suppose that it's "fair" to request compensation for the room and board if the person is making a "fair" wage?

No. Prisons should cost society money. If you are taking away someone’s freedoms, there should be a high cost so you don’t do it flippantly when another solution will work.

Are you concerned that if you make prison too expensive society might resort to capital punishment to reduce prison costs? Or we end up releasing prisoners who are legitimate dangers to society.

And to be clear, I'm opposed to capital punishment and dangerous conditions in prisons. I'm just pointing out that I don't think your argument is very good. If you think we as a society are willing to flippantly put people in prison because it's cheap I don't see how you can trust us to no resort to other flippant measures if the cost was high.

Wow.

No, they forfeited their freedoms and we're put away by due process, but if that's your point of view then we've nothing further to discuss. Incredible stuff on HN these days.

Incredible for sure. To start with, it sounds like you think due process means that any kind or amount of punishment must be correct and reasonable, which. wow.

For starters this is just a complete non-comment. I mean there's no substance here.

And secondly, he has a good point. We don't want to make locking people up easy or cheap. It should be high-friction, it should take a long time, and it should cost the government lots and lots of money.

Why? Incentives. The government has no reason to prevent crime if locking people up is cheap. It's made even worse by the promise of cheap or free labor. Then, you run into issues where the government actually wants people to fail and do crime, so they can extract labor from them. We see this quite aggressively in some southern states like Georgia. A remnant of Jim Crow era America.

But, if prison is expensive, the government will be incentivized to put some of that money into crime prevention programs. Things like homeless shelters, food banks, job programs.

Forced room and board?

To be honest, if he didn't pay a cut of his earnings while living off government allocated funds, wouldn't that put him in a better position than those who haven't been found guilty and sentenced for breaking the laws of the land in which they reside? I can't see a much resistance to the argument that they one really ought to pay the full cost back to the state, as with community service... no?

No, for the simple fact that he'd still be stuck in an American prison where people are brutalized, sexually assaulted, denied access to medical care, abused by guards, etc. regularly. He deserves everything he is able to earn under those conditions, and truthfully it's a miracle he can work at all.

Americans have become too comfortable with their everyday sadism.

And also medical care. Literally socialism.

No, because they don't want to be there.

Why would it not be reasonable?

Google feeds staff members and provides rest areas , why are they paid?

If my employer payed for my housing and food I would not consider it unreasonable that my paycheck reflected that.

> Why are they paid

Because people have expenses other than food and lodging. Prisoners do to, some save money for after they leave prison others spend it at the commissary.

For not going to work for competitors.

The government takes a cut then too, both from the employer and employer, in the form of taxes.

Which should be paying for the prisons and the operations society approves of to reform inmates. Prisons should not be a businesses of any kind.

I agree that a prison should not be a business (aka a different model than the US-model). I also think that many prisoners are currently treated unfairly.

However, ideally, I don’t think that it makes sense for someone to go to prison, which costs tax money, and meanwhile earn the same amount of money by remote working from prison as someone in the outside world, who actually has living expenses to pay for (which get taxed also).

So, I think, when it comes to fairness, it wouldn’t be unreasonable if a partial cut goes to the TCOO of holding that prisoner.

Now again, American prisons have their whole incentive model messed up, so I don’t even want to get in an argument about America’s implementation of this system and how it would lead to more problems— because it’s well-known and more than expected.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com