NYC jails want to ban physical mail, then privatize scanning of digital versions • Hacker News Board

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

#361

Post by mLuby » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 1:33 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #347

mLuby wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>You too can have this "free" housing; all it will cost is your choice of living location and proving that you're incredibly poor. >So this outrage is emotional bluster, like a child who never learned to share. You're repeating the same mistake as the parent, by refusing to seriously engage with the opposition, instead arguing against a strawman version the opposition's argument, and then concluding that they must be…

The steelman arguments help, thanks for sharing those.

> 1. Not society's responsibility to help the downtrodden

Sadly, this fits the evidence. Thankfully most religions and ethical systems don't agree with it. This worldview is most common when a weakened population is under stress (e.g. scarcity, attack, change).

> 2. Only help those who physically can't support themselves.

Putting aside how many mental disabilities this rules out, I don't buy it because if it were true, there'd be agreement about this category of homeless people, which there isn't.

Further, all a lazy freeloader would have to do is cripple himself to get free housing. Same scenario to giving up your house and income for a "free" home.

> what if they don't want to share… can't appeal to a teacher

A government does exactly that, for example making us all pay taxes (that no individual wants to) for the benefit of all, like collective defense.

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

#362

Post by krainboltgreene » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 1:35 AM UTC

mansion7 wrote: post #346

b112 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prison creates absolute animals In US prisons I suppose. Most prisons in the world don't have shankings, or gangs, they're designed to rehabilitate, not punish.

Interesting. As an expert on world penal systems and criminal rehabilitation, how do other more civilized countries rehabilitate a woman refusing to wear a hijab, or a guy who refuses to renounce Falun Gong?

Nothing and therapy, respectively.

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

#363

Post by krainboltgreene » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 1:36 AM UTC

squokko wrote: post #242

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.…

Prison creates absolute animals. We shouldn't put people in prison unless they're going to be there for their entire lives. Singapore-style caning is probably much better for both the convict and the broader society -- take the incorrigible violent criminals and lock them up for life without parole, and cane the rest.

This is such an insane comment even for HN. Is no one really going to point out savage an idea this is for handling prisons? There are countries that have incredibly low recid rates without deciding to black hole someone for their life or committing violence against them.

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

#364

Post by Spivak » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 2:05 AM UTC

JamesBarney wrote: post #351

Spivak wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the difference matter? You're still out $100k/yr. If you pay for my rent, food, clothes, electricity, heat, water, gym membership, healthcare, internet, and a one person subscription to rent-a-prison-guard the fact that I'm not seeing the cash is immaterial. > would we punish criminals in a different way Yes, this is implied. The most popular alternative is "house arrest" (i.e "adult grounding") where you're mon…

State prisons are 60% violent offences. Robbery, assault, rape, and murder. Another ~8% are burglaries which have a high likelihood of leading to violence.

Well let the other 40% out and then we can start looking at the 60%.

This kind of thinking makes no sense in a world where prison sentences are finite. If you think being arrested for a “violent” offense means you are such a danger to others you have to be physically separated from society then you might as well make all prison sentences for life.

“But people can reform” — Great then let them out the moment that happens. Get rid of minimum sentencing.

The thing I care about when it comes to “violent” offenses isn’t what they did but why. If I had an oracle that could see into their soul and know with certainty they would never reoffend I wouldn’t even bother locking them up at all. And if their offense was situational I want to see that corrected first. For $100k/yr we can be a lot more creative about setting people up for success. That kind of money is at the level of send them off to college or trade school, full time caretaker, the very best psych care, rehab, full-on relocation, or pulling them entirely out of poverty.

Prison being the place where people with issues society has decided we don’t want to deal with is heartbreaking. If we have any other option we should take it.

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

#365

Post by sexy_seedbox » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 2:06 AM UTC

choward wrote: post #255

squokko wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prison creates absolute animals. We shouldn't put people in prison unless they're going to be there for their entire lives. Singapore-style caning is probably much better for both the convict and the broader society -- take the incorrigible violent criminals and lock them up for life without parole, and cane the rest.

Pretty sure they still receive prison sentences in Singapore in addition to caning.

And hanging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Singapor...

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

#366

Post by JadoJodo » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 2:12 AM UTC

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.…

> Calvinist nonsense that says there are "bad people" and we should celebrate those people having bad things happen to them.

Can you talk more about how the doctrine of total depravity (I’m assuming that’s the “Calvinist nonsense” you meant) connects to putting people in prison?

Based on what you said earlier (“they are rewarded for cutting costs”), it seems entirely out of selfishness on the part of the prisons/cities/states, rather than a desire to exhibit specific harm on prisoners, that causes reductions in quality of life like this. But I do genuinely want to hear what you think regarding my question above.

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

#367

Post by themitigating » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 2:18 AM UTC

wstuartcl wrote: post #312

themitigating wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I understand the law I was arguing against it.

"Or is your stance that a person committing robbery..."

Consider the crime of attempted murder.(IMAL) that's when a person attempted to commit murder but failed. So they had intent and action, they just failed

Armed robbery is someone whose intent is to rob someone and they are successful at the act of robbery.

The reason the robber is armed is not to harm the person but as a threat. If their intent is to harm the person that's an additional crime (assault, murder, attempted murder)

"that is highly likely to cause great injury or death?"

Highly likely for the robbery or if they carry out the threat. I believe the vast majority of robberies where violence was threatened don't end in violence. I don't have data for this so if you contest it I'll recind that claim.

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

#368

Post by gruez » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 2:54 AM UTC

mLuby wrote: post #361

gruez wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You too can have this "free" housing; all it will cost is your choice of living location and proving that you're incredibly poor. >So this outrage is emotional bluster, like a child who never learned to share. You're repeating the same mistake as the parent, by refusing to seriously engage with the opposition, instead arguing against a strawman version the opposition's argument, and then concluding that they must be…

The steelman arguments help, thanks for sharing those. > 1. Not society's responsibility to help the downtrodden Sadly, this fits the evidence. Thankfully most religions and ethical systems don't agree with it. This worldview is most common when a weakened population is under stress (e.g. scarcity, attack, change). > 2. Only help those who physically can't support themselves. Putting aside how many mental disabilitie…

>Putting aside how many mental disabilities this rules out

"physical" was probably the wrong choice of words, but the general sense is basically people who couldn't support themselves, according to some arbitrary definition. People with mental illnesses might be included, but of course that's subject to debate. There's a spectrum between "you get free housing if you're even a little depressed" and "depression isn't real and people should just choose not to be sad".

>I don't buy it because if it were true, there'd be agreement about this category of homeless people, which there isn't.

I don't think this is true. There might not be universal support for giving quadriplegics some sort of financial assistance, but there should be enough support to comfortably get a ballot measure/bill passed. The problem comes down to politics. The side pushing for assistance doesn't want to be seen as weak and "settling" for only quadriplegics, and the side that doesn't want assistance doesn't want to start a slipper slope. In the end the question of "should we give assistance to quadriplegics" turns into a referendum on whether we should help people in general.

>Further, all a lazy freeloader would have to do is cripple himself to get free housing. Same scenario to giving up your house and income for a "free" home.

Right, you're not going to be prevent all the freeloaders, but at least with a physical disability requirement it would be unpleasant enough that nobody would seriously go through with it. The same applies for committing a crime just so you can get free housing + food + healthcare. Despite the scattered stories you hear about it in the media, it's just not really a common thing poor people do.

>A government does exactly that, for example making us all pay taxes (that no individual wants to) for the benefit of all, like collective defense.

Right, but getting government to do something requires popular support, which clearly isn't present hence why people are on hacker news complaining about "outrage" is preventing their preferred policy from being implemented. The whole point of the kindergarten example is that the teacher can unilaterally do the "right" thing, without the need for popular support.

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

#369

Post by gruez » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:02 AM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #329

gruez wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 widespr…

This scandal was widespread. A LOT of people could have put a stop to it, and all but 2 were government officials. A LOT of people were warned this was happening, and sometimes went so far as to abuse it (ie. schools would threaten kids). The district attorney apologized regularly to victims. But yeah, this sort of thing is widespread. https://apnews.com/article/prisons-us-department-of-justice-... https://www.justic…

>But yeah, this sort of thing is widespread.

>https://apnews.com/article/prisons-us-department-of-justice-...

>https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/final-defendants-includin...

>https://scheerpost.com/2022/01/23/the-scandal-of-u-s-prisons...

>https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/prison-ame...

I agree that these are all examples of justice system employees abusing their positions, but the examples given are slightly short of the original claim of "delivering inmates and redirecting profits", which implies some sort of concerted effort to send more people to jail for the purpose of enriching oneself. That's present in the cash 4 kids scandal, but really present when a corrections employee is mistreating prisoners. I certainly don't think the people

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

#370

Post by indymike » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 3:11 AM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #195

indymike wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's like saying software is written in C vs Java. It's still software.