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

151–160 of 199 posts

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

#151

Post by ak4g »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #120
thatswrong0 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you eliminate private prisons entirely and leave everything else alone, a pitifully small proportion of the people wronged by the criminal justice system would even notice, let alone receiving fair recompense. It's not so much that they "should not" be fought against, it's that it barely matters. It is simply poor allocation of attention.

Forest, trees, etc.

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

#152

Post by harryh »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #143
harryh wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure that the loved ones of prisoners are being punished (by, you know, being physically separated from the prisoners) regardless of the cost of phone calls. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. Were I a Mississippian, I'd prolly be in favor of cheaper phone calls for prisoners. But aren't we drawing a line in kind of a weird place? - OK to lock someone up in a cage. - OK to charge them $0.11/minute to talk…

> And given how weird that line is, should it really be drawn by outsiders who feel no effects of where the line is drawn? Yes. That how treating humans humanely works.

Why are outsiders better equipped to decide what is and is not humane than members of the actual community in question?

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

#153

Post by toomuchtodo »

ak4g wrote: post #151
toomuchtodo wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you eliminate private prisons entirely and leave everything else alone, a pitifully small proportion of the people wronged by the criminal justice system would even notice, let alone receiving fair recompense. It's not so much that they "should not" be fought against, it's that it barely matters. It is simply poor allocation of attention. Forest, trees, etc.

I'm pretty certain it matters to the 20% of federal prisoners, and 7 percent of state prisoners in those prisons.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06/private-prisons-prof...

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

#154

Post by toomuchtodo »

harryh wrote: post #152
toomuchtodo wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And given how weird that line is, should it really be drawn by outsiders who feel no effects of where the line is drawn? Yes. That how treating humans humanely works.

Why are outsiders better equipped to decide what is and is not humane than members of the actual community in question?

Because human rights are, as they say, "inalienable"; the local community doesn't get to vote on them.

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

#155

Post by harryh »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #154
harryh wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are outsiders better equipped to decide what is and is not humane than members of the actual community in question?

Because human rights are, as they say, "inalienable"; the local community doesn't get to vote on them.

Inexpensive phone calls are a human right?

Keep in mind this wasn't a ruling by SCOTUS citing the constitution. It was a ruling by the FCC meaning that ultimately it WAS a community voting on them. The only debate here is the size of the community that should get a vote.

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

#156

Post by toomuchtodo »

harryh wrote: post #155
toomuchtodo wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because human rights are, as they say, "inalienable"; the local community doesn't get to vote on them.

Inexpensive phone calls are a human right? Keep in mind this wasn't a ruling by SCOTUS citing the constitution. It was a ruling by the FCC meaning that ultimately it WAS a community voting on them. The only debate here is the size of the community that should get a vote.

You are free to your opinion. Preventing someone from keeping in touch with their family while they're in prison through extortion-level pricing of communications services is violating their rights, and the FCC appears to agree. If it has to go to SCOTUS, so be it.

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

#157

Post by ak4g »

ctdonath wrote: post #102
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…

Still means a lot. Cherry-picking a pair that differs little ignores the vast differences between other pairs. I moved from NY to GA; there's a deep cultural difference, and much that's desirable norm in one is nigh unto intolerable in the other (both ways). Wyoming is a very different lifestyle from California from Florida from Virginia from Maine etc. Drives many of us crazy that concentrated urbanites in one regio…

I disagree. Grew up in NC, spent a year and change in NYC, in SF for the last two years.

The biggest difference was the cost of a pack of cigarettes, when I still smoked. Now the biggest difference is the weather, which I gather varies quite a lot just within CA.

My coworkers are variously local and transplants like myself, and I wouldn't be able to tell except for being told.

One of the effects of the last half-century of mass media is the wholesale homogenization of American culture. I'm fine with this, and I wish our political structures would adapt accordingly; I happen to think American norms of 2015 are considerably better than North Carolina's norms circa 1965.

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

#158

Post by cortesoft »

smt88 wrote: post #130
ars wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would be the harm in doing it and then seeing if the courts struck it down? That's a pretty terrible way to run a government. When you elect someone you expect them to follow the law and do their job. Not just do anything they want and say "it's fine, if we are wrong the court will fix it".

> That's a pretty terrible way to run a government. When you elect someone you expect them to follow the law and do their job. Whether or not it's terrible, it's the system of checks and balances that was envisioned by the founders of the United States. It's exactly how our government has (and does) run for its entire history. The courts exist for this purpose. "Follow the law" is not cut-and-dried. Statutes can be i…

The courts exist for this purpose, but they aren't supposed to have to make a ruling for EVERY law. It would be very wasteful if lawmakers did not think at ALL about whether their laws would pass court scrutiny. Some laws are so obviously unconstitutional that they should not even be attempted; that will just waste taxpayer dollars. Of course, lots of things are in a grey area... that is where it makes sense to try to pass a law and see if the courts agree.

But for most of the time, lawmakers should try to only pass laws that are clearly legal.

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

#159

Post by SilasX »

smt88 wrote: post #149
SilasX wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about when your particular state wants to deviate from the national norm on, say, drug policy or gay marriage (in favor)?

Several states already do that with legalized marijuana. The federal government has chosen not to get involved, so it's become a de facto state's right.

So, you're against states' rights, except when you agree with the particular policy the state is following in defiance of the federal government.

That's not a criticism of states' rights; that's a criticism of not agreeing with you. Join the club :-p

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

#160

Post by enraged_camel »

ars wrote: post #138
smt88 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a pretty terrible way to run a government. When you elect someone you expect them to follow the law and do their job. Whether or not it's terrible, it's the system of checks and balances that was envisioned by the founders of the United States. It's exactly how our government has (and does) run for its entire history. The courts exist for this purpose. "Follow the law" is not cut-and-dried. Statutes can be i…

And? You advocate for every government official to power grab as much as they can and let the courts sort it out? The courts are there in case of mistakes, they are not intended as the primary way for government to function. Do you realize just what you are advocating for? Every little police chief will claim any road he can, until a court tells him to stop. Every property inspector will levy fines for parking ticket…

Courts sorting it out is not without consequence. It greatly harms the credibility of both the organization whose decision is struck down, and the people who voted for that decision. So when an organization says, "we will make the decision and let the courts sort it out", they aren't doing it as a power grab, but rather because they are genuinely unsure if it is a legal decision.

So in this case, the Democratic FCC members were willing to take a risk because they thought the potential benefit (giving prisoners affordable access to telephones) is worth it. The Republicans did not, because they are, in this scenario, comfortable with the status quo.

Post reply on HN