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

271–280 of 410 posts

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

#271

Post by wefarrell »

afarrell wrote: post #183
mabbo wrote: post #81

I feel like the prison system is the victim of perverse incentives. The goal given to them is "house this person securely for a specific length of time at the lowest cost possible ". They are rewarded for cutting costs. But the total cost we pay is the cost to imprison this person the second and third time when they re-offend. It's the policing costs when they're homeless because they can't find housing or get a job.…

> incentivizing prisons to actually rehabilitate Parenting is hard. Parenting someone who is already an adult is harder still. Beyond incentives, they might not have the resources to rehabilitate the prisoners.

They're spending over half a million dollars a year to house prisoners[0]. The resources are there but they're not using them for rehabilitation.

[0] https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/comptroller-stringer-co...

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

#272

Post by claar »

mabbo wrote: post #188
KMag wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a theologian, but my understanding is that 5-point Calvinism actually claims all people are bad (total depravity of Man) and that Christians shouldn't think they're better than other people, since it's not the person's choice if they believe in God or not (irresistible grace). Though, maybe in practice Calvinism deviates from theory.

Specifically, the concept I'm referring to is Predestination[0], or the more extreme version 'Double predestination', wherein God pre-ordained who the Good people are and who the Bad people are, and you know you're the Good people because bad things aren't happening to you, and you know that that person must be a Bad person because bad things happen to them. If you're born to a wealthy privileged life, this belief sa…

What you're describing is more commonly known as the "Prosperity Gospel" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology - which is a niche theology that claims believers will experience "health and wealth" on earth.

Predestination is a much more mainstream Christian doctrine that has nothing to do with "good people" vs "bad people", or even "good actions" vs "sinful actions". Predestination means some people are "destined" to salvation and others are not.

Predestination is a challenging theology that has to balance God being all knowing (omniscient) and free will.

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

#273

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

concordDance wrote: post #236
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to federal data the average annual cost per prisoner in federal prisons is about $115,000. Thought experiment: Imagine that instead of that, we identified people likely to become criminals, using all that new fangled crime prediction AI that police forces are so excited about. Then just given them say half that amount as UBI, so $50,000/year and say you can have this as long as you don't do crime. Peoples l…

The perverse incentives to try and behave like a potential criminal would be hilarious! Also, I think you might be missing how impulsive criminals can be... murder is often a crime of passion.

IMHO, it may be those impulsive murdering types are best kept in jail.

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

#274

Post by Spivak »

JamesBarney wrote: post #258
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to federal data the average annual cost per prisoner in federal prisons is about $115,000. Thought experiment: Imagine that instead of that, we identified people likely to become criminals, using all that new fangled crime prediction AI that police forces are so excited about. Then just given them say half that amount as UBI, so $50,000/year and say you can have this as long as you don't do crime. Peoples l…

Are you using metrics that are gameable? For instance some predictors of future criminality are past criminality, and education level. This heavily incentivizes people to commit crimes and drop out of school. So you are forced to only use metrics that are outside their control such as parent's previous income level. And you'll get nowhere near a 50% false positive rate using only these metrics. Not to mention all of…

> their neighbor who is working 40 hours a week and taking home $25,000 a year, while they sit at home playing xbox for 50k a year

And they wouldn't be mad that inmates are getting $100k/yr in court mandated housing services sitting in a cell doing nothing because for some insane reason we decided that it's a good use of our money and their time? Does it suddenly make it okay as long as they're suffering while they do it?

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

#275

Post by [deleted] »

concordDance wrote: post #239
ok_dad wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better yet, just give everybody a UBI sufficient for the basics, then we don't need to spend money on any newfangled AI bullshit.

This has the effect of discouraging people from working. So the question becomes how many are left who would be willing to work? And would we need a 80% tax rate on all transactions between people to fund it? And would that be a really bad idea?

[deleted]

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

#276

Post by thebooktocome »

notch656c wrote: post #254
thebooktocome wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m supposed to take comfort in the fact that you’re more violent in hypothetical situations? The death penalty will always be executed with a certain false positive rate. Willing it as a form of punishment necessarily entails willing the death of innocent people, who crucially can’t be brought back in the event that the state realizes it was mistaken.

You know the process for executing someone is very long, expensive road. Eager is the worst possible description of the death penalty. There are plenty of criticisms for the death penalty but now you're changing the goalposts as you realize your description written in a science fiction feel good reality was a bad fit.

> you’re changing the goalposts

Post one: The death penalty is always wrong because it can be handed out in error and cannot be revoked.

Post two: The death penalty is always wrong because it can be handed out in error and cannot be revoked.

No goalposts have changed in the making of this thread.

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

#277

Post by NeuNeurosis »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #208
glial wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems downright wrong for judges to have any financial incentive for ANY decision they make. Why would that be something we want to regulate? Seems like a judge should lose their position if they have a conflict of interest and rule anyway.

I know it sounds wrong, but the same goes for guns, drugs, and just about anything else illegal. If it's banned, it's just pushed underground where it can't be regulated at all. Besides, if there isn't a market for child-imprisonment, then we won't be able to accurately price it as a commodity. Not being able to price commodified child-imprisonment means the market for it will be much more inefficient than it needs t…

Wow what a horribly worded idea. I can't tell if you are trolling everyone or if you are a diehard libertarian capitalist. The implications from your suggestion would imply that regulating behavior outside of markets has never existed in the lifespan of the human race. I agree incentives are what regulate behavior but leaping from child-imprisionment is bad to we should make it legal and efficient is the only/best/reasonable solution disregards so much human legacy and sidesteps so many societal issues with normalizing this bullshit while allowing the horrible shit to live and grow. This shouldn't be normalized. Maybe child-imprisonment shouldn't exist in the first place? Why is your market based idea so easily reached for instead of taking a step back and saying this shouldn't happen under any circumstance or only in very rare circumstances? Why try and motivate behavior at the end of a cycle instead of totally doing away with the cycle to begin with?

Ideas like this show a moral bankruptcy that has become so ingrained in our Technocratic elites and we wonder why there is such a disconnection between different groups in our society.

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

#278

Post by wikfwikf »

AvocadoPanic wrote: post #231
_trampeltier wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany are about 1/3 people in prison because they used a train or bus without ticket. If you can't pay you will end up in prison. Imagine how much money this does cost.

I'd rather ride the U-Bahn in Munich than the subway in NYC.

Yes, and I'd rather go to prison in Munich than to Rikers Island.

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

#279

Post by hnlmorg »

vibrio_bobtail wrote: post #196
hnlmorg wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

…and your comment sums up exactly the point I was making about how hard it is to have a grown up conversation about this subject matter.

I get the need for justice but what you’re describing is revenge, not justice. Justice needs to contain a rehabilitation part and not just punishment. The point the GP was making is that the rehabilitation part has been substituted for exploitation. Regardless of whether you think the sentencing was just or not, and to be clear: I don’t think even the GP was suggesting that his brother-in-law didn’t deserve jail time, if you don’t try and rehabilitate then you’re just encouraging your offenders to go out and reoffend. Thus perpetuating the cycle of crime and increasing the number of peoples who are physically and mentally scared from crimes in the process.

Rehabilitating inmates doesnt need to be done for altruistic purposes. There’s a very self reason to do so: those inmates will become less likely to commit further crimes upon release.

And that is the crux of the argument here. It’s what the discussion should be focused on, rather than a pseudo-morality debate about whether they deserve the time. Because literally no one believes there shouldn’t be punishment for crimes. But what we don’t agree on is whether criminals deserve a chance to reform.

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

#280

Post by gruez »

Tangurena2 wrote: post #248
mabbo wrote: post #81

I feel like the prison system is the victim of perverse incentives. The goal given to them is "house this person securely for a specific length of time at the lowest cost possible ". They are rewarded for cutting costs. But the total cost we pay is the cost to imprison this person the second and third time when they re-offend. It's the policing costs when they're homeless because they can't find housing or get a job.…

One essay that touches briefly on this is Million Dollar Murray [0], about a homeless man and how the unwillingness of society to deal with his homelessness cost the taxpayers of Reno more than a million dollars. One of the points in the essay was that many difficult problems had "power law" distributions [1] (where the action is all at one extreme). And one successful program for treating homelessness handed out key…

>The "moral hazard" involved offends lots of people: "I pay my rent! Why should some one/freeloader/whatever get a free place to live when I have to pay?" Outrage seems to be the driving force in media these days. Which is why nothing will change.

I find it strange that you're just shrugging off the objections as "outrage", rather than trying to engage/address them in any serious way. I think the concept of fairness, and the fact that people might be incentivized to freeload are legitimate concerns. You might not think they're valid, but if you want their tax dollars to fund the social programs you want, it seems entirely reasonable that their concerns be addressed.

Post reply on HN