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

311–320 of 410 posts

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

#311

Post by ROTMetro »

angelgonzales wrote: post #288
ROTMetro wrote: post #103

Guess where prisoners get all those books they read? From family in the mail. Guess how they stay in touch with what is going on in the world. With magazine and newspapers. Oh, they are replacing that with free tablets? That is so nice. Wait... those tablets charge a per minute usage fee? Ah. They are free to have, but not to use. And of course, you have to pay EACH TIME you want to read the same book over on them, a…

I understand your point - prisons want to exploit prisoners and their families for profit by brokering imports into their facilities. I also think that many people who have bleeding hearts for these criminals and their families haven’t been direct victims of crimes themselves. Often these criminals are terrible people who act horrifically and with malice but act so sorry for themselves when they’re caught and on tria…

So you want to use the excuse of drug smuggling to punish criminals above their judges ordered constitutionally legal sentence? Got it. Thanks for elaborating on your reasoning and why you don't believe 'all men are created equal' and have constitutional rights (with criminals, what we are discussing here is a protected right to 'familial association' if you want to look it up in case law and Supreme Court precedent). We don't have constitutional rights because they are easy, but because that is what the United States of America has said since it's founding is the right thing to do and the core of what it is as a country.

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

#312

Post by wstuartcl »

themitigating wrote: post #200
wstuartcl wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Umm based on the statute and elements of the crime they were charged with and found guilty of.

Whoever, while committing a robbery, is armed with a dangerous weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a dangerous weapon, or inflicts bodily harm upon another, is guilty of aggravated robbery in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $35,000, or both.

Or is your stance that a person committing robbery with a weapon and threatening to use it should instead be considered a hapless person that has not chosen to act in a way that is highly likely to cause great injury or death? Like a gun is "ok" and should not be considered as evidence of intent to commit harm during the act of robbery unless they shoot it?

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

#314

Post by nobody9999 »

glial wrote: post #204
kelseyfrog wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why the judicial-prison economy developed - to establish a financial relation between the two. We know it as "kids for cash"[1] and judges can make "millions of dollars" in payments from private facilities. Outlawing such arrangements only pushes the blackmarket economy of kids for cash underground. Instead, of course, it should be regulated. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

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.

>Seems like a judge should lose their position if they have a conflict of interest and rule anyway.

That's pretty much what happened to the judge in the article linked by GP (you should read it, it's horrifying). Mostly because it's hard to work as a judge when you're serving a 17.5 year prison sentence.

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

#315

Post by gruez »

candiodari wrote: post #256
scrollaway wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You are stating private jails don't control the government. You're right, the opposite is true: government officials control private jails, which means delivering inmates and redirecting profits ... Last big scandal about large scale wrongful imprisonment - of children, no less - the people profiting from this were: 1) Directly profiting * the District Attorney * 2 judges * the director of ... of the Juvenile Probati…

> You are stating private jails don't control the government. You're right, the opposite is true: government officials control private jails, which means delivering inmates and redirecting profits ...

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

This gets brought up all the time as evidence of something systemic, but the linked article only mentions two judges convicted. Is there any evidence this is widespread?

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

#316

Post by ok_dad »

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?

> This has the effect of discouraging people from working.

Does it? I don't know that we can say it will, for sure. You're just assuming people are lazy, probably. Maybe it will discourage people from doing bullshit jobs and working on shitty advertising crapola, and instead we will have another human renaissance period of amazing things. Everyone I know, even those who aren't college educated and on the track to success since birth, would absolutely do amazing things for their communities with their time if they weren't doing stupid bullshit to enrich others.

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

#317

Post by nobody9999 »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #290
NeuNeurosis wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/re…

Ideally, moral value would be signaled by market-based price discovery. Economic progress is one of creating markets for more things, not fewer. Markets for some things but not others reeks of special pleading.

Yeah. Let's create a legal market for human organs and start with yours.

It will be most efficient. I promise!

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

#318

Post by mLuby »

gruez wrote: post #280
Tangurena2 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> Why should some freeloader get a free place to live when I have to pay.

You too can have this "free" housing; all it will cost is your choice of living location and proving that you're incredibly poor.

If that sounds like a good deal, then this taxpayer is all for you mooching off the same system. But as with "I'm moving to Canada" I doubt we'll see significant movement.

So this outrage is emotional bluster, like a child who never learned to share.

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

#319

Post by notch656c »

dragonwriter wrote: post #291
kelseyfrog wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally, moral value would be signaled by market-based price discovery. Economic progress is one of creating markets for more things, not fewer. Markets for some things but not others reeks of special pleading.

> Economic progress is one of creating markets for more things, not fewer. So, eliminating markets for people was a bad thing?

Kelseyfrog is trolling and enjoys using straw-man arguments to poke fun at other ideologies. I've debated with them before. Have you ever seen an ancap with pronouns in their profile lol? It's sarcasm.

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

#320

Post by comboy »

gruez wrote: post #280
Tangurena2 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Just offer it to anyone, with home or without, but who is willing to spend every night there and agrees that this will be verified. These are likely not places where people choose to live.

Compare it to prison with free healthcare, food and many more additional costs plus costs to society associated with whatever made somebody go to prison in the first place.

I mean, if you think about country income (or lack thereof) and spending, even ignoring military, corruption, church etc. There are still way bigger things to worry about regarding your tax dollars. There is tons of freeloading, exploitation and injustice, but if somebody is willing to accept living in slums to just have some roof over his head, he probably needs it, for whatever reason.

And even giving absolutely zero empathy, assuming no mental problems, childhood traumas etc., counting these specific irrelevant cents, it still may simply be the most economic solution from the society perspective.

Post reply on HN