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

NYC jails want to ban physical mail, then privatize scanning of digital versions

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 410 posts

Re: NYC jails want to ban physical mail, then privatize scanning of digital versions

#191

Post by dsfyu404ed »

sofixa wrote: post #113
explorigin wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Gestures vaguely around Take a look at any "tough on crime" or "conservative" politician, and the majority of then will say stuff to that regard.

>Take a look at any "tough on crime" or "conservative" politician, and the majority of then will say stuff to that regard.

It's not just the conservatives. HN will happily argue for disproportionate punishments for "risk of life and limb" type crimes in which there was no criminal intent and nobody was harmed. "Anti-social" crimes or "crimes that make a mockery of the system" (turnstyle jumping, vandalism of public property, stuff like that) are a pretty close second.

Re: NYC jails want to ban physical mail, then privatize scanning of digital versions

#192

Post by zarzavat »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #134
prepend wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 12+ years of incarceration in the federal system. His crime was armed robbery, first offense, no one was injured, and he profited a grand total of $35,000. No one was harmed. But the crime involved threat of death. So threatening to kill at least one person is a pretty serious crime. It’s good that no one was killed, but definitely the intent to kill for personal gain was part of the reason for such a lengthy sente…

Have to agree. We punish violent crime and corruption lightly; nonviolent crime inhumanely unforgivingly. If there was no violence, threat of violence, fraud or corruption, the limit should be two years. If there was, the minimum should be much higher.

I would go further. Prison should only be used for violent crimes with a high degree of intentionality.

It's been said that if you asked someone to design a process to create more criminals, they would likely invent prisons: mix as many skilled criminals, with random unfortunate individuals, so that they can share their knowledge of criminality, and have to fight to survive.

Prison is bad as a deterrent and is terrible at reforming criminals. The only thing prison is good at, is keeping violent people off the street. There's absolutely no reason why non-violent offenders should be in a prison, give them any other punishment instead.

Re: NYC jails want to ban physical mail, then privatize scanning of digital versions

#193

Post by themitigating »

mabbo wrote: post #153
aqme28 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suddenly prisons are trying to incarcerate the factually innocent, since they're the least likely to "re-offend."

This is why I love HN. You've taken a really nice idea and identified exactly how it will be abused by awful people.

Because that's always a possibility! Not thinking that way is why company after company seems make the same mistakes.

Re: NYC jails want to ban physical mail, then privatize scanning of digital versions

#194

Post by D13Fd »

nobody9999 wrote: post #182
D13Fd wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is about prison mail. It has nothing to do with police officers and does not mention the "government monopoly on violence."

>The article is about prison mail. It has nothing to do with police officers and does not mention the "government monopoly on violence." No. The article is about jail mail. While "prison" and "jail" are often used interchangeably, they are not (at least in the US) the same thing. Jails are for folks being detained before trial (i.e., they are innocent as they haven't been proven/pled guilty) or incarcerated for minor…

It's about both prisons and jails. From the article:

> The proposed changes follow a nationwide trend of prisons and jails moving to stop incarcerated people from receiving physical mail. Prisons in Pennsylvania stopped physical mail in 2018, and prisons in Massachusetts started sending incarcerated people photocopies of original letters. Last year, prisons in New Mexico and Florida adopted similar changes, and Texas has also limited in-person mail.

Obviously it's a bit more relevant to prisons where prisoners tend to stay longer and are more likely to receive mail.

Also, none of this shows that the article has anything to do with police department corruption.

Re: NYC jails want to ban physical mail, then privatize scanning of digital versions

#195

Post by dsfyu404ed »

indymike wrote: post #148
D13Fd wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The OP is talking about why these kinds of things exist. No they are not: >jails are powerful in all the wrong ways. . . . This is what corrupted power looks like. . . . Police departments are often the same. The article talks about prisons scanning mail. The OP then says that prisons are corrupt, then throws in that by the way, police departments are too. OP's opinion about police department corruption has nothing…

In the US a large number of incarceration facilities are ran by the county police (otherwise known as the Sheriff's department).

WellYesButActuallyNo.jpeg

The majority of jails in the US are run by county sheriffs or local law enforcement. The majority of prisons are run by the states.

Re: NYC jails want to ban physical mail, then privatize scanning of digital versions

#196

Post by vibrio_bobtail »

hnlmorg wrote: post #165
prepend wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 12+ years of incarceration in the federal system. His crime was armed robbery, first offense, no one was injured, and he profited a grand total of $35,000. No one was harmed. But the crime involved threat of death. So threatening to kill at least one person is a pretty serious crime. It’s good that no one was killed, but definitely the intent to kill for personal gain was part of the reason for such a lengthy sente…

The GP wasn’t trying to make light of his brother-in-laws crime (if he was, he wouldn’t have said what the conviction was). His point was that his brother-in-law has been exploited while serving his time and that is what leads to a high number of reoffenders. For what it’s worth, I agree with his point. The west looks down on revenge ruling, “an eye for an eye” etc. Yet the US prison system isn’t any more evolved. Th…

> The GP wasn’t trying to make light of his brother-in-laws crime (if he was, he wouldn’t have said what the conviction was).

He was making doing exactly that when he said no one was injured. Just because someone wasn't physically injured doesn't mean they weren't profoundly harmed by being a victim or armed robbery. How long did it take that victim to feel safe in their community again? His brother-in-law took that away from someone and deserves harsh punishment.

Re: NYC jails want to ban physical mail, then privatize scanning of digital versions

#197

Post by themitigating »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #125
Rebelgecko wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even though I'm not a fan of private prisons, I wonder what would happen if they had a contract that gave bonuses for every year a former inmate stayed out of jail? Maybe that's already been tried.

Utopian: Ex-cons lead happy and productive lives with relevant and in-demand skills. Education system is extended. Dystopian: Ex-cons learn how to evade capture. Law enforcement and enforcement capability is gutted, through lobbying.

Weird that when I think dystopian I think of a police state

Re: NYC jails want to ban physical mail, then privatize scanning of digital versions

#198

Post by dokem »

scrollaway wrote: post #159
aqme28 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suddenly prisons are trying to incarcerate the factually innocent, since they're the least likely to "re-offend."

But prisons don’t incarcerate people? They aren’t the ones taking decisions on who goes in there.

The is an incredibly naive view of the way the world works. The prison system has money ie power. They have the power to get people elected. Judges law enforcement and prison system are all one system and looking out for each other at the highest levels.

Re: NYC jails want to ban physical mail, then privatize scanning of digital versions

#199

Post by themitigating »

prepend wrote: post #120
jeffwask wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Victim isn't the right word because none of it is accidental. It's intentional design dating all the way back to 13th amendment which states. "The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. " My brother in law was released recently from 12+ years of incarceration in the federal system. His crime was armed robbery, first offense…

> 12+ years of incarceration in the federal system. His crime was armed robbery, first offense, no one was injured, and he profited a grand total of $35,000. No one was harmed. But the crime involved threat of death. So threatening to kill at least one person is a pretty serious crime. It’s good that no one was killed, but definitely the intent to kill for personal gain was part of the reason for such a lengthy sente…

But would he have done it? Obviously difficult to determine but a major factor. What if he made the threat knowing it's the only way to get the money?

Re: NYC jails want to ban physical mail, then privatize scanning of digital versions

#200

Post by themitigating »

wstuartcl wrote: post #137
prepend wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 12+ years of incarceration in the federal system. His crime was armed robbery, first offense, no one was injured, and he profited a grand total of $35,000. No one was harmed. But the crime involved threat of death. So threatening to kill at least one person is a pretty serious crime. It’s good that no one was killed, but definitely the intent to kill for personal gain was part of the reason for such a lengthy sente…

Lol yeah, armed robbery is effectively the charge for someone that was totally willing to kill while robbing but due to circumstances did not need to. That should not be considered a light crime.

How do you know they were willing to kill? If you rob someone you need to threaten them regardless if you are going to follow through.
Post reply on HN