
Prison phones are a predatory monopoly – One family fought back and won - some-guy
http://www.theverge.com/a/prison-phone-call-cost-martha-wright-v-corrections-corporation-america
======
avs733
While I find the conversations in here interesting from an economics
perspective they are not solutions to the real problem. This is not a function
of cost between inmate, provider, and family alone. These phone systems have a
real and tangible cost on society as a whole. An enormous body of research [1]
showing that offenders with better/more familial contact while incarcerated
have vastly lower recidivism rates.

This is literally companies causing harm (and not just economic) harm to
societies citizens at large. I respect jlafon's point of view but I can't
agree. The fact that a system you create is difficult to adminster should not
mean that the cost of dealing with it should be passed along to your
'customers' (gagging as I use that word). When a group of people chooses to
put others in a position of limited power they have a responsibility to
protect them from harm. Treating prisoners as a revenue stream at all is
immoral and I believe unconstitutional. The argument that they should pay or
do anything to contribute to their imprisonment is vapid and ugly. If we
aren't willing to shoulder the burden of imprisoning them then we shouldn't do
it. We absolutely should not be charging them or their families usury amounts
of money to satisfy rules and situations we created.

Letting prisoners use the phone is labor intensive? Why? because you created
rules and a system where it is. To spin it as more complicated or containing
'reasons' is post hoc justification nonsense and should be treated as such.

[1] Summarized here:
[https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/apr/15/lowering-
re...](https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/apr/15/lowering-recidivism-
through-family-communication/)

~~~
vkou
> Treating prisoners as a revenue stream at all is immoral and I believe
> unconstitutional.

Doubtful. The Constitution makes it clear that slavery is illegal... Except in
the case of prisoners.

If you can subject prisoners to forced labor, gouging them on phone calls
seems a small step.

~~~
ecdavis
I'm certainly not a constitutional lawyer, so I ask out of curiosity: has the
13th amendment been interpreted this way?

I feel that there's a difference between slavery as punishment (i.e. being
explicitly sentenced to slavery) vs. slavery incidental to punishment (i.e.
being explicitly sentenced to imprisonment, and then the private prison
deciding to enslave you during your sentence).

~~~
vkou
Incidental, but morally, there is no difference. Public prisons also take
advantage of this clause.

And yes, this has absolutely been interpreted in this way. Unpaid, or grossly
underpaid prison labour is extremely common in the US.

~~~
violentvinyl
That is true about unpaid labour, but my understanding was that this isn't
forced on to the prisoners. I understand that prisoners are given the option
to work, and reap various benefits in return (modest pay, extra hours outdoors
in the case of road crews, and potentially leniancy for "good behavior" at
parole hearings).

------
c3534l
Why have we decided that the way to treat criminals is to systematically
destroy their social support system for profit? This sounds like a terrible
idea, and a direction that doesn't seem to be improving the American prison
system in the least.

~~~
rayiner
Because American voters--collectively, not individually--are bad people. Our
criminal justice system, moreso than other parts of our government, is
responsive to the will of the people. And the current state of it is a product
of the profound moral failure on the part of the populace.

If you'd rather blame for-profit prisons, think about this. How far removed
are we from lynchings, throwing black people into jail on zero evidence, etc?
There were no for-profit prisons when states were systematically abusing the
rights of the accused--particularly minorities, just 40-50 years ago.

~~~
themartorana
We've been ready to end the War On Drugs for a decade - coincidentally the
very thing responsible for a majority of our prison ills.

~~~
rayiner
Who is "we?" The vast majority of the population thinks everything except
marijuana should be illegal. Also, the drug war is not responsible for the
majority of our prison ills. The most egregious stuff (three strikes laws) has
nothing to do with the drug war.

~~~
themartorana
Not true, by a wide margin.

[http://www.people-press.org/2014/04/02/americas-new-drug-
pol...](http://www.people-press.org/2014/04/02/americas-new-drug-policy-
landscape/)

As for three strikes, drug possession was one of the top offenses for which it
is applied.

[http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm](http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm)

"Possession of controlled substances alone made up 12 percent of the state’s
[CA] total three strikes population at the time — drug crimes in general
accounted for 23 percent."

[http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/three-strikes-law-drug-
addict...](http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/three-strikes-law-drug-
addiction_n_1779154.html)

~~~
rayiner
Americans don't want to give jail time for _possession_. But they still want
to keep those drugs (besides pot) illegal by huge margins:
[http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/drug-legalization-
poll_n_5162...](http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/drug-legalization-
poll_n_5162357.html). I haven't seen any polls asking about trafficking
specifically, but I think it's fair to take those two data points to mean
people want to target traffickers not users. But that is what the vast
majority of the drug war is about. 99.8% of federal prisoners incarcerated for
drug offenses were incarcerated for trafficking, not simple possession.

Your California stats are misleading. First, you said that drugs are
responsible for the "majority" of our prison ills, but your chart shows that
77% of people sentenced for a second or third strike are for property or
personal crimes, or gun possession.

Second, California is unusual in that the third strike can be anything (first
two must be violent felonies). So people are in for drug possession, but also
for other minor things like larceny. In most states, drug possession doesn't
trigger the three strikes rule at all.

In any case, three strikes rules weren't created because of the drug war, even
in California. It was a response to a guy who murdered a girl. And note that
in several states, these rules passed by public referendum with huge margins
less than 25 years ago.

~~~
pcwalton
> Second, California is unusual in that the third strike can be anything
> (first two must be violent felonies).

No, not since the passage of Proposition 36 in 2012:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-
strikes_law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law) (see
"California")

~~~
rayiner
Right. But the data he's sourced to is from 2005.

------
ndespres
Thanks for sharing. I'm glad this is staying on our radar lately.

There was another link discussed here recently
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11648361](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11648361))
about how these exorbitant prison phone calls are being replaced with video
calls- and ONLY video calls. In the linked article we have this quote: _The
alternative to high rates isn’t lower rates, the association has suggested —
the alternative is that phone calls in jails will be done away with entirely.
"Absent these commissions," association president Larry D. Amerson wrote in a
comment to the FCC, "counties would need to either increase taxes for the
system or jails could potentially cease to provide inmates with this
service."_ So either continue to support this monopoly, or don't speak to or
see your brother/cousin/mom in jail at all.

Here in New Jersey where I live, as of yesterday you can no longer visit an
inmate in a couple of our prisons, in person. Instead, you can pay Securus for
a video connection to the inmate you'd like to speak with. I think if more
people who were not directly connected to the System via a friend, family
member, or personal experience were aware of what's going on, they would be
appalled. Instead we conveniently pretend this stuff isn't happening.

From the linked article: _[Securus '] Smith defended his company’s profits on
many of the same grounds other inmate phone companies do. The contracts, he
says, are a source of funds for crucial corrections services like health care.
"It’s really a public policy issue," Smith says. Securus also provides
security services, recording calls sent through its system and intervening to
break up any illegal plots that it detects. "We really feel like we perform
kind of a noble service for society," he says._

What he's not saying is that local municipalities can also get a kickback from
the money paid to contact prisoners. So not only does it fund healthcare
within the prison system (which of course are also increasingly privatized, so
how much of that money do you think can be claimed as profit by the company
running the prison), but to fix potholes etc in the local town.. on paper, at
least.

What I wish these stories left me with is what to do next. Who do I call,
petition, or vote for to get this changed?

~~~
nefitty
Assuming your network is as socially enlightened as you, I would try to figure
out if this is happening in your state and contact local government officials
about your concerns. Done in a group, it could be a fun social activity to go
to a town hall meeting to voice your concerns in public. Afterwards, reward
yourselves with a drink for getting out of the house to show your support for
good government.

------
koolba
If you give out monopolies, then this is what happens. Here's a simple idea to
fix this: capitalism.

Mandate at least two providers at each prison and let them charge whatever
they want. Let them race to the bottom so you get the same cheap voip rates
the rest of the country has access to.

Oh and if they collude on pricing, throw the management in the same prison.

I bet they'd also start competing on the features the prison cares about too.
Like tracking who's calling who, speech to text transcripts, and service
levels.

Problem with this approach is that it doesn't allow for the cronyism that is
ripe in this type of industry.

~~~
deelowe
Two wouldn't be enough:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duopoly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duopoly)

~~~
smnrchrds
Neither is three:

[https://i.imgur.com/NVsdNIE.png](https://i.imgur.com/NVsdNIE.png)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/4e9yjw/competition_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/4e9yjw/competition_in_canada_a_comparison_of_canadian/)

~~~
wrboyce
It would seem that EU Regulators agree with this sentiment:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36266924](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36266924)

------
hermannj314
Our local jail charges for personal visitation, you get 2 visits per week free
but can pay a "nominal" fee to stream additional conversations over the Web.
Let's just say that fee was ridiculous. I can't find the link for it was $30
for 15 minutes I think.

As a former foster parent that was just trying to connect with the birth
parents while they awaited trial, yeah those prices suck.

But hey, who cares about people accused of crimes, right? That's the American
way.

~~~
Someone1234
Some jails have tried to eliminate all in-person visitation entirely and move
to a system where you'd still have to physically go to a jail, but they'd use
video streaming, and naturally charge you for the "service."

Their stated reasoning is, drugs, or similar. Even though prisoners are
already searched after the visitation, and guards are a common conduit for
illegal drugs in jail.

The whole criminal justify industry in the US is sick. Seriously needs a top
to bottom shakeup.

~~~
roywiggins
Honestly refusing in person visits by default should be outlawed on the
grounds of being cruel and unusual punishment. But America loves to be cruel,
so I doubt modern courts would establish a Constitutional right to in-person
visitation.

Too bad, because imho video-only visitation is a human rights abuse.

~~~
maxerickson
Last year the Supreme Court affirmed a religious right to a beard:

[http://www.npr.org/2015/01/21/378774424/supreme-court-
rules-...](http://www.npr.org/2015/01/21/378774424/supreme-court-rules-
on-2-prisoner-rights-cases)

(I searched for "supreme court prisoner rights")

I'm not lampooning the religious right to a beard, I'm suggesting that the
atmosphere in the courts may be better than you think.

~~~
Retra
A great number of Americans seem to think religion is the cure for crime, so
that's not a surprise. Consider instead how well mental health, education, and
social support fare.

------
jlafon
First of all, I'm not defending what is obviously predatory. However, there is
more involved then what you might think at first glance. Right or wrong,
correctional facilities have reasons to discourage phone calls (context: I put
myself through college working at a maximum security prison). Calls are
supposed to be monitored (usually done manually) to prevent criminal business
from being done on prison phones - and there are never enough people to listen
to all calls. There are never enough phones either, which frequently causes
tension between inmates using phones and those waiting for them. In higher
security levels phones are labor intensive. An officer has to escort a
(potentially dangerous) person from their cell to the phone, and stand there
for the duration of the call. And to the article's point, it's such a problem
that prepaid phone cards are a form of currency on the inside.

~~~
chillwaves
They record the phone calls. It seems that if there was an incident it is
trivial to review phone calls and bring evidence to bear against the guilty
parties.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Or someone like Google could be doing this as a service? Isn't GOOG411 how
they captured enough voice data to train their neural nets for Google Now?

------
electic
I think this is a very unique article from a web design perspective. The
counter on the left hand side, indicating the time you've been reading, and
how much your charges would be if you spent that time on the phone is genius.
It really hammers in the point of how unethical this practice is.

~~~
skuunk1
True, except it was distracting to the point that I couldn't finish reading
the article...

------
rbobby
What a horrible thing to do to innocent American families. Bad enough their
loved ones have fucked up mightily enough to be incarcerated but now the state
gouges the hell out them just to talk to each other.

This is not how a government should treat its people.

------
Overtonwindow
It's getting worse. Prisons are now forcing inmates and families to use video
visitation, eliminating all in person visits.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/video-visitation-is-ending-
in...](http://www.businessinsider.com/video-visitation-is-ending-in-person-
prison-visits-2016-5)

------
Zigurd
Think what a thrashing, including calling out the founders and management,
companies like uBeam and Theranos get here. Ghouls like prison telcos are 100X
worse. Where do we get people who run these operations? Who are they and what
makes them tick?

~~~
ndespres
They are part of a cycle of private wealth creation that includes, but is not
limited to, the following elements:

1\. Local politicians "save money" by outsourcing management of prisons in
their districts to private companies

2\. Contracts awarded for services within these systems have kickbacks which
direct money for services back to the municipalities

3\. States award contracts to build new prisons in towns, who are told that
jobs will be created for their towns, plus the aforementioned kickbacks

4\. Now that the prisons are built, they have to be filled. So the local
police departments get to work arresting people to fill them up. Judges,
lawyers, sherrif's departments, etc justify their own existences by meeting
arrest quotas, being "tough on crime," etc., get promoted up their respective
ladders until they're in positions of power to keep the cycle going.

------
mason55
I shared an office with a guy who did a couple years for white collar crime.
He got out and started a business that placed local voip numbers near prisons
then patched the calls through to long distance numbers. He charged way less
than the prisons were charging for long distance calls.

He was making a ton of money last I talked to him.

------
mynameisnoone
Hillary (and other politicians on both sides, from local to federal) get a ton
of for-profit prison money. No wonder.

EDIT: VICE did a piece in 2014 on people getting locked up because they could
not pay their parole fees. Yes, debtors' prison, where parolees pay (or not)
for the privilege of freedom. [https://news.vice.com/article/debtors-prisons-
are-taking-the...](https://news.vice.com/article/debtors-prisons-are-taking-
the-us-back-to-the-19th-century)

------
njloof
Can't we just let them have cell phones and let law enforcement tap them by
getting a warrant?

------
mapt
[https://www.aclu.org/files/images/asset_upload_file769_25745...](https://www.aclu.org/files/images/asset_upload_file769_25745.pdf)

------
kingmanaz
Seems most of mankind's daily labors are inclined toward predatory monopoly
these days; either creating their own or wage-slaving toward preserving
another's. One laughs with today's comedians as they parody the manners of
yesteryear, those musty, pinkies-out concepts of gentlemen and gentlewomen,
that gullible faith in the golden rule, yet one's teeth are soon sent gnashing
when those many insurances which buttress men's insolence are found to be
effected by the same selfish, hard-hearted men as oneself.

Rather than Thoreau's "quiet desperation", the masses instead seem bent toward
lives of "clawing desperation".

------
venomsnake
Is there a good reason prisoners not to have 24/7 internet access and phones
for free. Even if monitored.

Hell - give them a free WoW or LoL accounts and they may forget to come out of
prison once their term is over.

------
martin1975
something about "prison" and "winning" used in the same sentence had me
immediately peg this article as TLDR...

