Hacker News Reader

It's actually worse than that. Most states and the federal system impose periods of supervision after release - often lasting for years. During this time, they aren't just expected to not break the law. They must find a job that their probation officer approves of, with an employer that is willing to give reports to the PO, and must disclose their conviction to all potential employers. They often cannot travel outside the county in which they reside, even for work. They cannot drink alcohol (even socially) in most cases. Their constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure are null and void, and must submit to searches any time and at any place they are. Those that were accused of financial crimes often are not allowed to possess checking accounts or credit/debit cards. They often must attend expensive classes & counseling sessions, and pay supervision fees, along with making any applicable restitution or payments on fines. These are just the basics that apply to everyone....there is an infinite list of conditions that can be imposed based upon the specific crime(s) they committed.

If they violate any of these conditions, they are subject to immediate arrest and imprisonment, usually without any judicial review. This is one reason reincarceration rates are so high - it's incredibly easy for these people to be sent back to jail without even thinking of committing a new crime.

You are 100% right. Parole and probation violations are a common misstep in our system, and account for an enormous amount of our prison population. I can speak from experience. I had a one-year probation sentence, on the very last day with only a few hours until my probation was set to expire (I even had a preliminary release letter from my probation officer with the date and time of expiration and had completed my final assessments), I was packing a moving truck preparing to move out of the state. I did not intend, nor was there any possible way I could have finished packing and had everything wrapped up in that time, to leave prior to my probation being expired. Instead an off-duty sheriff deputy who knew I was on probation just happened to see me packing decided he was going to stop and arrest me for on a violation for attempting to violate by moving. Although when I went before the judge 24 hours later he dropped it, the fact of the matter is that I was still violated, spent 24 hours in a holding cell waiting to see the judge, all because someone was a little overzealous in their job and had a zero-tolerance attitude.

Now I see and hear the stories every day of individuals who are violated for the dumbest reasons (i.e. bus crash in front of probation office, witnessed by probation officer, individual taken to hospital, violated for missing probation appointment by same officer that witnessed the accident in the first place. Given a 90-day sentence for violating their probation. And those were the facts as provided by the officer, not the individual. The officer essentially was laughing at how much control they have over someone's life in these incidents.).

I call this the police-judicial complex; they have a "problem" in that between the end of the demographic Baby Boom and the partial reversion of the soft on crime '60s and '70s, there is much less real crime. Per the thesis of Arrest-Proof Yourself (http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Dale-C-Carson/dp...) that means in much of the country they'd have to downsize if they didn't "feed" upon a steady stream of what the authors refer to as "the clueless", most especially the sorts of people who can't realistically follow all their probation restrictions.

Obviously much, much better than them suffering layoffs. And I'l criticize the media again with their "if it bleeds, it leads" bias, how many in the US realize crime is down so much from that old peak?

I've always wondered if I would take parole, or complete my sentence? If it was just a few extra years, and I was in decent health; I think, I would say no to parole?

The rules they put on paroles are beyond unfair. They might have made sense in the 50's, but so much has changed. We don't have jobs. We don't have any housing. The few guys I knew who got out of San Quentin were given $180, and dropped off at the bus station in San Rafael. (The ones with caring family did a little better than the single guys, but all of them went back eventually because of parole violations.)

Whenever I hear a state administrator explain our current parole system; I know he's lying to the public.

A Stanford Mathematics grad student spent twenty-five years unsuccessfully struggling to obtain his PhD then beat his advisor to death with a hammer.

After serving quite a long time in prison, he was offered parole, with the only condition - at least as reported in the press - being that he not set foot on the Stanford campus ever again.

He refused parole, served out the remainder of his sentence then was released. I don't know what became of him after that but his plan was to work as an electronics technician in Silicon Valley.

While he did wrong to murder his advisor, I regard his refusal of parole as one of my inspirations for being so bluntly outspoken myself. There is no doubt whatsoever that what I blast all over the Internet makes me damn near unemployable but I work to benefit others that are unable to speak for themselves.

As bad as things do get for me sometime, there are billions of people alive today that have it far worse.

In Colorado, misdemeanor probation has been "privatized" and is managed by a for-profit entity (Intervention, Inc. & Rocky Mountain Offender Management Services [RMOMS]).

I've been through their "system". I'm convinced it's a money making scheme. Their "case managers" (you don't even get a probation officer) are paid $12/hour and are implicitly instructed to find ways to charge you more money. I've had one lie to my face about a state statute (that I had memorized, word for word) to try to get me to pay them more money.

A first-offense, low BAC DWAI in Colorado set me back >$20,000 over 2.5 years and 3 lawyers.

Holy shit. Do you mind saying more about that amount? Fines vs. lawyers fees, vs probationary costs?

Lawyer 1 Retainer: $4000

DMV License Revocation Hearing: $50

MADD Panel: $30

Court Fines: $2000

County Probation Intake Fee: $100

Private Probation Intake Fee: $100

Probation Supervision: $1000

Community Service Fees: $250

Urinalysis: $1000

Bus for urinalysis: $750

The single urinalysis during a trip to NYC: $300

Alcohol Education Classes (teacher ripped me off, had to repeat): $1500

Alcohol Education Classes Round 2: $1500

Lawyer #2 to Fight Class #1: $4000

Lawyer #3 to Fight Class #1: $2000

Alcohol Therapy: $2400

Probation Discharge Fee: $100

License Reinstatement Application: $95

Driving Permit Application: $50

Driver License Application: $50

Ignition Interlock Installation: $100

Ignition Interlock Lease: $2400

Job opportunity lost: VP of Engineering at mid size software startup. Required short notice international travel. Denied by probation. Would've been a 500% boost in salary for me.

You are required to present a pay stub each month to your probation officer. You can not black out the payment amounts (I tried). In effect, these case managers know exactly how much money you make and what your expenses are (intake questionnaire). They knew I had a good amount of disposable income and used that to their advantage.

The money isn't even the worst of it. A buddy of mine is currently on probation for the same charge (low BAC DWAI) in Colorado. He's 24 and has been diagnosed with 2 distinct cancers. Probation denied medical marijuana use but allows him to take prescribed opiates. Well, the prescriptions ran out and heroin is cheaper than Vicodin. Guess what? He buys heroin now and has the prescription on file to ignore the results of opiate metabolites in his urine.

My girlfriend is also currently on probation for the same charge (low BAC DWAI). She's supposed to start University in September (Vet. Tech. program at a great school). The case managers are intentionally making it very difficult for her to be able to attend. She's seriously considering postponing her education for 24 months. That's the real crime.

Do you see a pattern here? Mid 20-somethings being targeted.

DWAI in Colorado = BAC 0.02

DUI per-se in Colorado = BAC 0.04

DUI in Colorado = BAC 0.08

Even 1 drink and they can arrest you. DWAI carries virtually the same penalties as a DUI ($500-$1000 difference in fine).

Ugh! I hated to upvote for all those expenses, but that was a great documentation of the actual costs involved. The real eye-opener for everyone should be that sadly the majority of those costs are collateral consequences that are added on so that various for-profit companies can all get a little piece of the pie.

Ignition interlock is the biggest scam of a for-profit company I have ever seen. My ex-fiance had to get one in Florida. The place to have it installed was about 50 miles from our house. They told her she had to drive the car there herself and present her valid driver's license to get it installed. Not really thinking about it, I drove her over there. They were about to turn her away because she wasn't driving, yet her probation condition says she can't drive without one installed. They did overlook it after some pleading, but then asked for her driver's license. All she had was a state ID card because she couldn't get a valid driver's license until she had the interlock installed. She ended up never getting it installed. Funny story though, we moved to a different state a few months later and the court order for the interlock didn't follow her. She was able to get a driver's license free and clear. Ironically, when we broke up she moved back to Florida and because she had a valid driver's license from another state she walked right in and got a Florida driver's license.

But I would say the worse part for you was the job loss. While the expenses are high, losing a job is a much greater loss in my opinion. I don't understand the travel portion for some non-violent felonies. I had a similar clause, ended up costing me a couple thousand in attorney fees to get them to let me travel to a different county in the same state for an overnight work meeting. It is completely out of hand in my opinion.

Two things strike me here. First is that the effective cost to you was over ten times the amount that the judge (or whoever) thought was sufficient to serve "justice". That's fucking insane.

Second is that the people in charge treated you like a hard core alcoholic. Without knowing anything else about you I'm going to guess that's not the case. Regardless of motivation -- although profit is a safe bet -- it's stupid in the truest self-destructive sense for society to automatically treat you like this for [edit: a drink or two].

Edit: I'm getting my BAC numbers mixed up, but it doesn't really matter. I see that in our state 0.02 is DWAI for <21 years of age. It's like we're looking for ways to fuck up peoples lives.

Not a US citizen, I just looked up "BAC DWAI": blood alcohol content, driving while alcohol impaired: http://dui.drivinglaws.org/colorado.php http://dui.drivinglaws.org/drink-table.php

You were either not treated according to law, there's something you're forgetting to say, or the above info is incorrect: * no "alcohol lock" for a first time "BAC DWAI" * no license suspension for a first time "BAC DWAI".

The laws were recently changed in January. They've removed the loss of license but replaced it with a lenghty ignition interlock requirement.

Yep this is becoming a big move too. The privatization of parole/probation offices. It's unreal the expenses they charge and most are uneducated or misinformed about the actual laws of each state.

Yep. It's gotten bad enough that people will actually take a longer period of incarceration if it doesn't involve probation afterward. And good luck finding an employer who will hire a felon. Hell, good luck finding a landlord who will rent to you.

Landlord here. I won't rent to violent felons (murder, sexual assault, etc.) strictly as a liability issue. But I consider it an ethical and moral obligation to not discriminate against people convicted of crimes that don't reasonably make them a threat to the neighbors of my properties.

I firmly believe that one of big drivers of recidivism is housing discrimination based on the mere presence of a criminal record.

EDIT: cleaned up a bad sentence

Thank you for being a decent person.

I really appreciate that, thanks

It really is that bad. I would've gladly taken 90 days in county jail vs. years of probation for a first offense misdemeanor.

On the flip side, my county's jail offers yoga and fresh fruit daily.

Private prisons are profit making enterprises. Keeping that in mind, how convenient that America's penal system is for many offenders a revolving door that keeps them locked away for decades if not life. Oh! And the prison industry has an influential lobby advocating on its behalf. Do you not see the problem here? Who owns and operates prisons is a very real issue indeed.

I really wonder about this country and its dysfunctional and, frankly, dehumanizing institutions. We deny a significant minority of our citizens the most basic benefits of living in the world's most advanced society. And I'm not talking about the small minority of dangerous offenders that are justifiably kept in prison for life. We also have a difficult time admitting that the profit motive almost certainly guarantees a corrupt and unjust prison system.

We, as a nation, elected "tough on crime" politicians. As you already pointed out, the private prisons lobby. They lobby the politicians we as a nation elected. We have a democracy, we vote for tough on crime politicians. As a result, we imprison lots of people.

This is propaganda designed to legitimize the actions of the individuals who are effectively using coercion and violence to enslave large parts of the population.

If "We", as a "nation", elected pro slavery politicians, it wouldn't justify the owners of land and capital to enslave people.

This would be the moral equivalent to a belief that some religious groups hold: that "We" are all born sinners, we all deserve to go to hell, but by the grace of god (the state), we can repent (vote) and accept the next savior (presidential candidate).

Democracy, as you call it, is a religion based on the belief that elected groups of individuals have legitimate authority to totally violate basic human rights. In this case, an individual right not to be enslaved.

But, in reality, nobody has a legitimate authority to enslave another person. Voting is participating in the delusion that the state has legitimate moral authority to imbue unrighteous people with righteousness in the first place. They don't.

It doesn't matter if "well, we voted for it": the politicians, executives, as well as the employees and shareholders of these "sanctified" corporations are still morally responsible for their actions, and should be held accountable for their actions.

I partially agree that we do elect "tough on crime politicians" and we get what we elect. But part of the problem is that we also live in a reactive society instead of a proactive one. We react to incidents with tough laws that sound good when emotions are high and in the moment. Yet we fail to consider the long-term consequences of those laws, so 5-10 years down the road we face the real results of the law. We also live in a society where it is easy to be lazy with laws and take a zero-tolerance approach. I would characterize it more as we have "tough on crime politicians" who don't start that way, but over time become that way because of lobbying efforts and reelection campaigns.

If government policy doesn't have a strong positive correlation with the desires of the population, then you can't just write everything off as "well, we elected the government."

Unfortunately in this case it does. Many, many people consider criminals to be subhuman.

>"private prisons are profit making enterprises"

Tautology surely

I agree with your point about how the law drops the ball when it comes to rehabilitation.

A real issue IS who owns or manages the prisons. If the profit motive is what drives prison expansion, then society will experience a form of regulatory capture in hyperacceleration.

Many of those programs and processes are being taken over by private entities. You are no long just paying out to your municipality, county, state or country. You're paying out to them and the private company who demands your payment or you go to back to prison for non-payment. They still profit and your debt racks up.

You are paying out fees to the private company for your detention, your lodging, your processing and probation on top of what the state is paying them to hold you. If you cannot pay them back, you are free to spend a day in jail for each $10-$40 of your debt owed to your captors. They get to collect from the state as well.

Then, with the money they've been collecting, the private entities go and lobby to make sure there is a steady stream of constant offenders to keep profits increasing every quarter.

Sometimes it makes sense to bribe judges to send innocent children to your private juvenile detention center to collect those fat state grants, a la Cash for Kids.

The profit motive perverts justice and seeks to turn everyone into customers of the private justice system.

> A real issue IS who owns or manages the prisons. If the profit motive is what drives prison expansion, then society will experience a form of regulatory capture in hyperacceleration.

The thing is, profit motive is there regardless of whether you call the prisons "private" or "public," because the people constructing, supplying, and running the prisons are (presumably) getting paid, and those people don't suddenly stop having personal incentives if you start calling them government employees.

The people constructing the prisons also construct schools, hospitals and buildings that society needs. There isn't a lobby of people solely benefiting from the construction of prisons other than the owners that the prison is built for.

Prison unions are a big problem, as well. They bring many of the same problems to the table. California's is a great example of just how easily these groups can manipulate the system for their benefit.

The state at least can be swayed by representatives and public initiative. As an entity, it doesn't exist only to turn a profit.

It isn't perfect, but handing the entire system over to people who only care about the bottom line will accelerate the problem.

The majority of US states eventually restore the right to vote:

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...

Vermont and Maine allow prisoners to vote, 13 other states allow voting on release, and then some more restore the right after parole/probation.

Many of the remaining states allow petitioning of the governor to restore the right to vote.

(That felon voting is not particularly problematic in the states where it is allowed can be used as an argument against disenfranchisement, so I think it is good to try to accurately characterize the situation)

Yes, you are right in that most states do have a path to restoring voting rights.

But the fact that it is an issue at all is the problem. A non-violent ex-offender should not have to go through a process of petitioning, or even have to worry about having their voting rights restored at all, when their sentence is completed. Even automatic restoration is not always "sure thing". Florida for example used to have "automatic restoration" but it actually entailed filing with the clemency board and getting approved (although approval was pretty much a guarantee). Since then though, Florida, like some of the other states that have automatic restoration, has changed to add a waiting period and additional approvals. For non-violent felons that complete their sentence there should not be a wait. Using the Florida example, an 18 year old arrested for selling drugs on the street corner. Serves a year in jail. Gets out free/clear (meaning no parole or probation). Has to wait 5 years to have his right to vote restored. That is wrong in my opinion and only makes the situation worse. Disenfranchisement is a much bigger problem than people realize when it comes to elections. There are over 6 million adults in the US that are disenfranchised. Making the number worse is the hodgepodge of state laws across the country that lead to confusion. There are countless numbers above the 6 million that have no clue if they can vote at all, if their rights have been restored, or what is even required to get them restored. Yes, they can get lawyers to figure it out for them, but who is going to pay for that?

The page I linked has resources for each state. Maybe not always sufficiently detailed, but I think ex prisoners in Alaska probably understand what unconditional discharge means.

The point of my reply is that you said and then we tell them they can't vote in elections, which does exactly what it complains about. Hearing that they probably can vote is going to get more people to look into it than overstatements of the disenfranchisement.

I am aware of the link and the laws, I actually run an advocacy group for ex-offenders nationwide, so pretty familiar with this topic.

With Alaska I would beg to differ to some extent. The term "unconditional discharge" simply means no parole or probation. Alaska still has other restrictions though based on the type of felony that was actually committed. So while it may sound simple on the website it becomes convoluted in the actual law.

As for my reply regarding saying they can't vote, I stated that here more as a generalization in the context of this discussion. You are right if you make that statement to an ex-offender it is going to have a negative context, whereas if you tell them they may be able to vote they are more apt to find out how.

The fact remains though that the laws work against, and not for, the ex-offender upon release. My point was simply that we continue to punish through the laws of collateral consequences. If you want to see just how in-depth and convoluted collateral consequences can be, take a look at this site by the American Bar Association:

http://www.abacollateralconsequences.org/

> we expect an ex-offender to get out of jail, get a job, have a stable housing environment, pay taxes, and not break any more laws

We expect an ex offender to be reformed, but that is not the role of prisons.

'Prison is a recruitment center for the army of crime. That is what it achieves. For 200 years everybody has been saying, "Prisons are failing; all they do is produce new criminals." I would say on the other hand, "They are a success, since that is what has been asked of them." '

https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/12/17/specials/foucault-pri...

In the education/upbringing of children, it is a long known fact, that you will get what you expect.

Tell a child, that it will fail over and over again, you will most likely get a failure. Tell a similar child from its birth over and over again that it will be a winner, you will get a person that is much more likely a winner than the other person.

The US society today trains failures. It starts by being born in the wrong district of a city or belonging to the wrong race. When in such a case, you have no good family (eg. single mother), you have all odds against you. It goes on, by visiting the wrong school ...

While I was at Western State Hospital in Lakewood, Washington I puzzled over why so many of my fellow patients acted so childlike. For example when we waited in line for our meals, it was just like schoolchildren waiting in line, asking each other to hold their places while they stepped out, or saying "No cuts!"

This was even the case among aged grandmothers.

I very quickly realized that it was largely due to the way we were treated by the staff. For example if one refused to take one's medicine in the morning, one would not be permitted to smoke cigarettes in the exercise yard that day. If one refused in the evening, one would not be permitted a root beer float.

At no point did any of the hospital staff explain to any of use WHY we were taking that medicine.

It is far, far more important for the mentally ill to know why we take medicine, than it is for us to actually take it at all.

If you treat someone like a child they will act like a child.

The real issue is that we put too many people in jail for two long. And that's a legacy of laws passed in the crime waves of the 80s and 90s, back when for-profit prisons were almost non-existent. E.g. three strikes laws passed in the early 1990s.