Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Massachusetts becomes fifth state to make prison calls free

    (www.wgbh.org)
    264 points toomuchtodo | 11 comments | 29 Nov 23 02:33 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
    Show context
    glenjamin ◴[29 Nov 23 12:39 UTC] No.38458643[source]▶
    I once attended an internal presentation while working for the UK's Ministry of Justice.

    A large number of contraband mobile phones had been confiscated, and a team performed some data analysis to see what they'd been used for.

    The overwhelming conclusion was that the phones had been primarily used to keen in touch with family.

    There's also a whole bunch of research that showed that maintaining ties with the outside world while incarcerated led to reduced rates of reoffending (and the inverse was also true - isolation led to increased rates).

    Allowing free phone calls in and out of prisons makes a lot of sense both socially and economically.

    replies(8): >>38458817 #>>38459329 #>>38459485 #>>38459854 #>>38460749 #>>38460765 #>>38471701 #>>38486522 #
    immibis ◴[29 Nov 23 13:03 UTC] No.38458817[source]▶
    But the purpose of the prison system isn't to improve society and economics.
    replies(5): >>38458834 #>>38458884 #>>38459074 #>>38459363 #>>38459717 #
    1. LadyCailin ◴[29 Nov 23 13:10 UTC] No.38458884[source]▶
    This is an absolutely bizarre take. Even if you’re all for the pure punitive aspect of it, why would you not want to improve society and the economics? Are you Kim Jong Un or something? I’m genuinely confused how any reasonable argument can be made here, regardless on your stance towards the prisoners themselves.
    replies(4): >>38458935 #>>38459281 #>>38459331 #>>38459342 #
    2. jghn ◴[29 Nov 23 13:15 UTC] No.38458935[source]▶
    They didn’t say they support the status quo.
    replies(1): >>38459005 #
    3. SteveNuts ◴[29 Nov 23 13:22 UTC] No.38459005[source]▶
    Then they should elaborate on their point because their comment sounds like they do.
    replies(1): >>38461161 #
    4. kayodelycaon ◴[29 Nov 23 13:49 UTC] No.38459281[source]▶
    The US is really big on making sure criminals never stop paying for their crimes.

    Improving society in a way that helps anyone who hasn’t earned it is contrary to the goals way too many voters.

    5. MPSimmons ◴[29 Nov 23 13:55 UTC] No.38459331[source]▶
    I'm hoping the comment you're replying to was sardonic.
    6. slibhb ◴[29 Nov 23 13:56 UTC] No.38459342[source]▶
    If you're a retributivist, you believe the point of prison is to punish the guilty. Therefore you will be uncomfortable with the idea of prison as a means to "improve society or economics".

    Kant:

    > [Punishment] can never be inflicted merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society. It must always be inflicted upon him only because he has committed a crime. For a human being can never be treated merely as a means to the purposes of another or be put among the objects of rights to things

    replies(2): >>38461166 #>>38462274 #
    7. jghn ◴[29 Nov 23 16:06 UTC] No.38461161{3}[source]▶
    I interpreted it as snarking on the current state of affairs. By and large, in the US the point of the prison system is *not* rehabilitation or providing benefit to society. It's about lining the pockets of wealthy people and keeping the downtrodden in that position. And that sucks, but stating it as a matter of fact doesn't mean one supports it.
    replies(1): >>38465030 #
    8. LadyCailin ◴[29 Nov 23 16:07 UTC] No.38461166[source]▶
    But if I’m a retributivist, why do I want to be less efficient with money and also make MY life worse, just to inflict more punishment on some prisoner? That just genuinely makes no sense. I can understand the logic of wanting to punish them for the sake of it, but I would also want to be efficient about it, and not make my life worse in the process.
    replies(1): >>38461636 #
    9. slibhb ◴[29 Nov 23 16:39 UTC] No.38461636{3}[source]▶
    You don't want to be "less efficient with money" or "make your life worse". Factors like that don't come into it. Neither does "making society better," "reforming the guilty party," or deterrence. And "inflicting more punishment" isn't the goal either -- that's just cruelty.

    The basic point is simple. If a person commits a crime, they should be punished in proportion to the crime. Full stop. Within that simple framework, efficiency is fine, but it shouldn't be the goal.

    10. immibis ◴[29 Nov 23 17:29 UTC] No.38462274[source]▶
    And the country we're talking about is run by retributivists, and even further, whatever that is called - people who just want to see other people punished.
    11. SteveNuts ◴[29 Nov 23 20:43 UTC] No.38465030{4}[source]▶
    That's definitely how I interpreted it also, but the comment definitely buries the lede at least