Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 199 posts

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#111

Post by revscat »

nickff wrote: post #66
revscat wrote: post #58

That may have been their stated objection, but the broader pattern belies this. The broader pattern is "make life as difficult for the poor, middle class, and the minorities as possible."

Why must you accuse your intellectual opponents of being mean and evil? Why would they be so cruel and irrational? Do you have any real reason to believe you are any better than them?

Because they are mean and evil. Their irrationality comes from the zealous belief that anything conservative must be defended to the death, and without compromise.

At the end of the day, though, the "why" of their cruelty is not all that important. The fact is that they are evil, and relish in it.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#112

Post by zo1 »

kefka wrote: post #24
javiramos wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The whole private prison thing makes me want to vomit. Makes me vomit too. We've created a systematic punishment machine rather than a reformation and education system. And systematic profiteering machine that's corrupting the objective of the Justice system.

This way, the system also punishes everyone involved but not directly the defendant/accused. And it does so via the pocketbook.

And if you exclude victimless crimes, it also punishes the victims. A bit of a stretch, but you could say so if no active and meaningful attempt is made to rehabilitate incarcerated individuals.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#113

Post by thatswrong0 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #9
Someone1234 wrote: post #6

I don't understand why the Republicans voted against. Look, I get it, you support private industry. But let's remember context, you support capitalism where COMPETITION exists, in this situation it is an artificially created monopoly of one company. Now if they had an alternative proposal that required prisons to have two or more vendors, I'd be totally onboard with not setting an artificial price restriction. Since…

> The whole private prison thing makes me want to vomit. Muckrock (shoutout to @morisey) is doing an investigative piece on private prisons. If possible, please think about contributing $10-20 on it. https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2015/sep/18/justice-s...

I'm going to keep reiterating this: private prisons are not the problem. They are a problem, and a relatively small one at that compared to other systemic abuses.

> Far more influential are political benefits that elected officials of both political parties harvested over the decades by being tough on crime as well as the billions of dollars earned by government-run prisons’ employees and private contractors and vendors.

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2015/10/07/private_prisons_...

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#114

Post by jacquesm »

thatswrong0 wrote: post #110
jacquesm wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's terrible but it does not make commercial prisons 'good' in any way shape or form.

I don't think anyone is arguing that. But the private prison issue is certainly overblown - their existence is not the reason why things in the U.S. criminal justice system are so bad. They were created in _response_ to prison overcrowding in the late 80s to reduce costs. And the number of prisoners in private prisons is tiny compared to the general prison population. They are a problem, but not the problem. Don't ta…

Sure. But the idea here is that there are many things wrong and that there is no reason to just tackle one of those things or do them serially. Some parties chose to challenge some elements of the criminal system directly, others choose to focus on other aspects of the problem. There is room for all of these. For the 7% or so that is in private prisons (commercial prisons would probably be a better term anyway) the situation is bad in ways that it isn't for the others and it is worth addressing those problems (to them for sure).

To say this doesn't warrant any attention is similar to saying that we don't need to do space travel or fundamental research before we've cured world hunger, cancer and aids because those address bigger and immediate problems.

There is room for all of the above.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#115

Post by nrb »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #44
Someone1234 wrote: post #6

I don't understand why the Republicans voted against. Look, I get it, you support private industry. But let's remember context, you support capitalism where COMPETITION exists, in this situation it is an artificially created monopoly of one company. Now if they had an alternative proposal that required prisons to have two or more vendors, I'd be totally onboard with not setting an artificial price restriction. Since…

> The whole private prison thing makes me want to vomit. I'm not sure this is the fundamental problem. Seattle jail is run by King County Corrections and it's a human rights disaster.

It absolutely is a fundamental problem. Just because government-run prisons have some overlap in their human rights abuses with private-run doesn't excuse the business model of the latter.

When you are paid by the bed, it is in your best interest to lobby for stronger sentencing guidelines[1] to gain and keep as many inmates as you can, and bleed as much cash out of them as possible in the process. In some cases you even have detention centers bribing judges[2] to lock away children in exchange for cash.

1. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/09/private-prisons-occu... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#116

Post by anon432 »

nickff wrote: post #85
anon432 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look into the research of Jonathan Haidt.

Yes, I am aware of the psychological reasons why people hold themselves in high esteem while accusing their opponents of moral corruption; my rhetorical questions were meant to highlight the absurdity of the accusations.

Haidt's research actually suggests this behavior is more common amongst progressives because they subscribe to a narrower moral framework based on fairness and harm-reduction while conservatives incorporate other elements such as loyalty, respect for authority, and purity. Thus, when the two disagree, conservatives, being concerned with fairness and harm reduction but not exclusively so, are able to understand the progressive position and understand why progressives disagree with them, but progressives are unable to likewise understand the conservative position and why conservatives disagree with them, so they assume wickedness instead.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#117

Post by michael_fine »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #94
smt88 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably time to give up on the ridiculous sanctity of states' rights. It made sense in a time when people lived in same state their whole lives, rarely traveled outside the state, and rarely communicated outside the state. Their whole lives unfolded within a few hundred square miles. That's not the case anymore. You can't subdivide the interests of American citizens by state anymore. What does it mean to be fro…

What does it mean to be from Seattle vs. Vancouver?

You're right, in an ideal world it would mean nothing, as country distinctions are mostly arbitrary. However, there doesn't exist, and most likely won't exist in the near future, a world government that can realitistically replace all of the country governments, which is why it's not worth calling for the imminent removal of 'country rights'.

However, in the case of states, there is a organizing body that can, and is increasingly governing in their stead -- the federal government. And as many people believe the federal government has on average done a better job, that is why there are calls for the retirement of the 'states rights' concept.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#118

Post by gherkin0 »

vijayr wrote: post #67
Someone1234 wrote: post #6

I don't understand why the Republicans voted against. Look, I get it, you support private industry. But let's remember context, you support capitalism where COMPETITION exists, in this situation it is an artificially created monopoly of one company. Now if they had an alternative proposal that required prisons to have two or more vendors, I'd be totally onboard with not setting an artificial price restriction. Since…

It is not just the prison. In some places, ankle bracelets are outsourced to private companies [1] and they charge the user rent for it and if they can't pay, guess where they go back? [1] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/23/1424181/-Pay-for-yo...

That's such a manifestly unjust arrangement that whoever made that deal with that company should go to jail.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#119

Post by FireBeyond »

nickff wrote: post #95
linksbro wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how I understand how an independent commission created by congress to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges"[1] is increasing the scope of their authori…

If you read the commission's charter broadly enough, and without regard to either the original understanding or the original intent, you come to all kinds of absurd conclusions. From the text you provided, one could, for instance conclude that the FCC has the authority to issue regulations which require parents to provide all children above the age of two with a cellphone capable of high-speed internet access with no…

Yeah, there's a -reasonable- interpretation of the charter, and your hypothetical broad interpretation. "in so far as possible" is an important phrase - there is no justification in the charges being set for prison communications other than "because we can", as shown by the utterly huge profits shown by these companies.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#120

Post by toomuchtodo »

thatswrong0 wrote: post #113
toomuchtodo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole private prison thing makes me want to vomit. Muckrock (shoutout to @morisey) is doing an investigative piece on private prisons. If possible, please think about contributing $10-20 on it. https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2015/sep/18/justice-s...

I'm going to keep reiterating this: private prisons are not the problem. They are a problem, and a relatively small one at that compared to other systemic abuses. > Far more influential are political benefits that elected officials of both political parties harvested over the decades by being tough on crime as well as the billions of dollars earned by government-run prisons’ employees and private contractors and vend…

I agree they are a symptom, not a root cause. That does not mean their use should not be attacked and fought against.
Post reply on HN