[HN Gopher] Suing to protect right of incarcerated people to rec...
___________________________________________________________________
Suing to protect right of incarcerated people to receive physical
mail
Author : glitcher
Score : 323 points
Date : 2023-03-15 18:39 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.eff.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.eff.org)
| dkural wrote:
| Land of the free.
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| As a prior ACLU supporter, I eventually switched over all of that
| monetary support to the EFF, whose litigation matches much closer
| to what I believe are broadly important civil liberties.
|
| ACLU meanwhile seems obsessed with limiting my 1A right to free
| speech, which is baffling. Not even to mention 2A rights.
| jerry1979 wrote:
| Out of curiosity, what did the ACLU do to limit 1A protections?
| Spivak wrote:
| Absolutely nothing. The most damming thing you can really say
| they've been exercising their choice of what battles to fight
| to prefer sympathetic defendants when possible.
|
| But they still go to bat for people you probably don't like
| https://www.acluva.org/en/news/why-we-represented-alt-
| right-...
| lacker wrote:
| Here's a good article about the debate:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
|
| Basically, the ACLU used to be very focused on supporting the
| first amendment, and recently has shifted more to supporting
| progressive causes, even when they conflict with the first
| amendment.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Maybe they see that allowing literal nazi (by their own
| accord) organizations hasn't actually reduced their
| presence like some free speech absolutists seem to believe.
| If your ideology shows itself to not work, maybe you can
| change your ideology?
| john_the_writer wrote:
| I don't think free speech absolutists believe that. I
| think I'm an absolutist..
|
| Here's a question I like to ask people who aren't.
|
| Which member of your family would you give the power to
| tell you what you can't say. Pick one. Once you pick, you
| can't change your mind. For the rest of your life you
| have to only say what they let you.
| briandear wrote:
| Did the first amendment change?
| [deleted]
| mminer237 wrote:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
|
| They got a political rally in support of keeping civil war
| statues shut down by the government.
|
| Their attorney stated that "Stopping the circulation of
| [Abigail Shrier's] book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will
| die on."
|
| They applauded students and professors blocking reporters
| from documenting a protest.
|
| They filed a brief in support of disciplining teachers for
| using the wrong pronouns.
|
| They say they now consider various factors in whether or not
| to defend speech, including "the extent to which the speech
| may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or
| others whose views are contrary to our values".
| a_shovel wrote:
| > _They got a political rally in support of keeping civil
| war statues shut down by the government._
|
| The only thing similar to that in the article is the
| Charlottesville protests, which the ACLU _defended_.
| pmarreck wrote:
| What is baffling is your lack of provided evidence to that
| claim, which is a strong claim (which demands evidence) due to
| its conflict with the ACLU's own position document on the 1st
| Amendment:
|
| https://www.aclu.org/other/freedom-expression-aclu-position-...
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| Shokie was almost 50 years ago. As an example, can you name a
| single recent court case where the ACLU defended speech
| against a "protected class"? Speech we all agree with doesn't
| need defending.
| Spivak wrote:
| https://www.acluva.org/en/news/why-we-represented-alt-
| right-...
| rnd0 wrote:
| We're in the middle of a culture war here! there is
| literally no speech that we *ALL* agree on.
| Syonyk wrote:
| The ACLU just is obsessed with sending me "push poll" sort of
| "surveys" in which they goal is to rile me up before the
| important "And how much will you donate?" question.
|
| They're the mirror image of the "push poll" surveys I get from
| conservative groups. The amount of junkmail I get trying to
| ensure I'm outraged enough to open my wallet, from both sides,
| is entirely absurd. I guess that's what I deserve for
| subscribing to a range of magazines instead of plugging into
| the online outrage engines.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Yeah, the ACLU definitely feels more like a political super
| PAC (the Democratic counterpart to the Koch brothers'
| Americans for Prosperity, perhaps) than it does a civil
| liberties union.
| tpmx wrote:
| > _This lawsuit also marks EFF's commitment to stopping the
| current trend that seeks to privatize aspects of the carceral
| system for profit_ as well as strip privacy away from
| incarcerated individuals.
|
| Scope creep? [Clarification: Not the lawsuit itself, but the
| first part of this sentence.]
|
| This is the _Electronic Frontier Foundation, 'The leading
| nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and
| innovation'_.
| [deleted]
| jerry1979 wrote:
| What is the boundary between the analog and the digital if not
| the "electronic frontier". The EFF started by defending a
| physical book publisher that was accused of receiving a
| document about digital systems.
| anfilt wrote:
| To me this is still somewhat involved with "digital" freedoms.
| That freedom being the right to opt out or to not use "digital"
| systems.
|
| The same thing applies to in other instances for example the
| move to a more cashless society I think the right to use cash
| is still important for a litany of reasons.
|
| That right to opt out is important especially if it is even
| more invasive than the analog/real world equivalent.
| hooverd wrote:
| Well, prisons are a good testing ground for these things.
|
| edit: I should clarify that I don't support what prisons are
| doing, I think it's good that the EFF is opposing this, because
| prisons are exactly where you'd roll out this kind of
| technology firsts.
| nofinator wrote:
| The rest of the sentence is relevant though (emphasis mine):
|
| "This lawsuit also marks EFF's commitment to stopping the
| current trend that seeks to privatize aspects of the carceral
| system for profit *as well as strip privacy away from
| incarcerated individuals*."
|
| Since this is (by my count) at least the third time they've
| sued to block some kind of new surveillance by a for-profit
| prison, I think it's fair that they are calling out a pattern.
| tpmx wrote:
| Perhaps I misunderstood it? Or it's poorly written?
|
| I parsed this as two mostly separate commitments. Expanded
| the quote in the comment above.
| mindslight wrote:
| Here they're defending people _from_ the electronic frontier,
| and this case would seem to be solidly within the scope of free
| speech. Specifically the freedom to express yourself without
| having to force your message through the sewer pipe of
| corporate authoritarianism.
| hlieberman wrote:
| Virtue-signaling messaging aside, do you feel that this _isn't_
| a case that should be within the spirit of the EFF for
| defending "digital privacy"?
|
| In my mind, there's a direct line from the government requiring
| someone to use a particular computer program for a particular
| purpose to the government requiring us _all_ to use a
| particular computer program. It would certainly be more cost
| efficient for the US Postal Service to stop delivering mail
| across the country and replace it by opening letters, scanning
| them, and making them available to me by email... but I would
| hope that the EFF would fight tooth and nail to prevent that.
|
| Just as in so many things, these sort of technologies are
| tested first on those who can't easily say no--prisoners,
| students, the poor--before they are rolled out to us all.
| [deleted]
| bombcar wrote:
| The USPS will already scan envelopes en-route to you; I'm
| almost certain they could open them and do the same quite
| easily, maybe for a fee.
|
| https://www.usps.com/manage/informed-delivery.htm
| drivingmenuts wrote:
| Seeing as how no one else is stepping up to prevent abuse of
| prisoners, seems like scope creep can be justified in this
| instance.
| yodon wrote:
| The ACLU is clearly no longer the institution it once was.
| Glad to see the EFF is stepping up.
| Spivak wrote:
| You're joking right?
|
| https://www.aclu.org/court-cases?issue=prisoners-rights
|
| There's 11 pages of just cases from 1999 to today.
| pessimizer wrote:
| If someone hints at a _recent_ decline, 24 year old cases
| are not going to convince them otherwise.
| [deleted]
| pmarreck wrote:
| can you please provide evidence for your statement here
| yodon wrote:
| See for example [0]. The core concern is that the ACLU is
| going through an identity crisis as its membership
| evolves, and it is shifting strategy from defending the
| right of free speech for all (including the defending the
| right of free speech for speakers and statements its
| members strongly disagree with) to defending the right of
| free speech for those aligned with its values. That is a
| shift many long time supporters of the ACLU view as a
| dangerous failing of the organization because the key
| free speech cases frequently involve abhorrent speech,
| but that is where the case law for the rest of speakers
| is determined.
|
| After working, as it historically has, to defend speech
| its membership considers wrong or unpleasant in
| connection with a 2017 Charlottesville VA case,
| "Revulsion swelled within the A.C.L.U., and many assailed
| its executive director, Anthony Romero, and legal
| director, Mr. Cole, as privileged and clueless. The
| A.C.L.U. unfurled new guidelines that suggested lawyers
| should balance taking a free speech case representing
| right-wing groups whose "values are contrary to our
| values" against the potential such a case might give
| "offense to marginalized groups."[0]
|
| Defending speech you don't like or agree with takes a
| great deal of stomach, but if you want to be a defender
| of free speech, those are the battles you must fight. If
| you let speech you disagree with be silenced, you give
| the government the tools it needs to silence speech,
| including speech you do like and agree with.
|
| [0]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-
| speech.html?...
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| The groups that are almost always going to be test cases for
| more involved surveillance or severe constraints on specific
| freedoms: prisoners, sex workers, government assistance
| recipients, disabled people. If they're doing it to one of
| these groups they want to be doing it to you too, and probably
| will be in a decade or so.
| newaccount2023 wrote:
| Aryan Nation members once started a race war in the PA penal
| system by sending orders written in pee on otherwise innocuous
| mail
|
| when exposed to heat, the letter in question revealed an order to
| go to war with a black prison gang
|
| I agree with the EFF case, but this prohibition isn't just a
| random infringement
| rtkwe wrote:
| Any communication channel could carry that same message encoded
| any number of ways that don't require sending piss soaked
| letters. Trying to stop every possible bit of crime even in
| prisons is impossible without unacceptable draconian
| conditions.
| acumenical wrote:
| [dead]
| moate wrote:
| I mean you can always find justifications for abuses of
| power/removal of rights.
|
| Just look at _points to the entirety of human history across
| all civilizations ever_.
|
| What's your point? That truly bad people can find fig leaves to
| provide people who agree with their bad beliefs but want to
| continue the appearance of civil society so they can go to the
| rest of the community and advocate for the bad thing?
| connicpu wrote:
| That seems rather straightforward to prevent without infringing
| on the right to receive mail itself. Letters are already
| inspected, if the prison is worried about hidden messages in
| the paper substrate, they can give the prisoner a monochrome
| photocopy with any extra noise scrubbed out.
| simonw wrote:
| Is that definitely true? It sounds suspicious to me.
| briandear wrote:
| https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-jun-27-me-
| code2...
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| If this riles you up and you want to do something, there's a new
| program at Georgetown opening up for technologists called the
| Judicial Innovation Fellowship which places tech folks with
| different jurisdictions to help them improve the system.
|
| https://www.law.georgetown.edu/tech-institute/initiatives/ge...
| aqme28 wrote:
| It's kind of interesting in this context because it's mostly
| the tech solutions here that are famously extractive. The old
| ways of phone calls and letters work well. We don't need
| technologists, we need politicians.
| lacker wrote:
| As an EFF supporter I'm a little worried about this phenomenon
| where nonprofits sprawl out into many unrelated areas. The ACLU,
| for example, started off very focused on civil liberties but in
| the Trump era it seemed to generalize into opposing everything
| Trump did.
|
| Which, I mean, I don't support the average thing that Trump did,
| but it started to feel like donating money to the ACLU was just
| the same as donating it to the Democratic Party. And isn't
| someone else going to be better at spending that money
| effectively, if your area of expertise is "everything"?
|
| Similarly, here in the Oakland area I was looking for food banks
| to donate to, but there seems to be no organization that simply
| provides food to needy people. Everything I could find was like,
| well the _name_ of our organization is the Oakland Blah Blah Food
| Bank, but in practice we regrant donor money to many other
| causes, we do many other things, we don 't really just provide
| food to people.
| moate wrote:
| Point of order: Is it not possible that Trump in particular
| just stood in opposition to the ACLU's worldview/mission
| statement? For that matter, they're not really keen on some of
| Biden's immigration policies either.
|
| A large chunk of the visible mainstream Republican platform is
| not very civil liberty friendly at this point, and the Dems
| have not been let entirely off the hook.
| briandear wrote:
| From the ACLU:
|
| "The American Civil Liberties Union is our nation's guardian
| of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and
| communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and
| liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States
| guarantee everyone in this country."
|
| That sounds a lot like the position of the Republican Liberty
| Caucus. https://rlc.org/statement-of-principles-positions/
| techsupporter wrote:
| The EFF has always been deeply interested in the intersection
| of privacy and the digital world. That has oftentimes
| manifested as privacy _in_ the digital world, but not always.
| This is one of those examples. The EFF is saying "privacy and
| this digital service cannot coexist; the digital service must
| therefore lose, and we know what we're talking about because we
| are well-versed in this policy area."
|
| Also, a lot of not-for-profit entities intentionally branch out
| because such is the nature of helping the group of people they
| want to help. The term for it is intersectionality. That not-
| for-profits are heavily siloed is less a matter of intent and
| more a matter of history. If you are a food bank, you recognize
| that your intended client base needs food. But, second-order to
| that, why do they need to come to you? Is it because they need
| a job? Well, they're already here, so why not engage in skills
| enhancement and training? And since you'll be at the city
| council anyway doing advocacy for access to food, why not also
| advocate for more housing? If those continue to be siloed, you
| wind up with three separate groups, working at separate-but-
| related aims, each with their own overhead and inefficiencies.
|
| It's vertical integration, in the not-for-profit advocacy
| space.
| tpmx wrote:
| The only reasonable conclusion: They don't want your money.
| kashkhan wrote:
| Mail sent to you is your property. Intercepting it in transit is
| highway robbery.
| 5555624 wrote:
| I knew an inmate in Pennsylvania, the prison system there
| stopped accepting physical mail if you wanted to write an
| inmate, you sent a letter to a company in Florida. While their
| name was also in the address, the letter was to "Smart
| communications," in a state where you knew they were not
| located. That's probably the excuse they'd use -- the actual
| mail is not being sent to the addressee.
|
| (In Florida, the letter was opened and scanned, then
| transmitted to the prison, where it was printed and delivered.
| It was always unclear whether it was read and reviewed in
| Florida or Pennsylvania or both.)
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| Prisoners are slaves who do not have the same rights as other
| Americans
| kashkhan wrote:
| yep prison is an abomination. Needs to be defunded and
| outlawed.
| laserdancepony wrote:
| And then we do what to uphold the rule of law?
| voakbasda wrote:
| This is the truth. The legal exception is literally carved
| out in the 13th amendment; the government reserved the right
| to make slaves of its prisoners.
| the_svd_doctor wrote:
| Lots of people in prison/jail are not convicted though, but
| merely awaiting trial. The 13th amendment only applies to
| "duly convicted" people.
| AaronM wrote:
| Not all incarcerated people are prisoners though. Plenty of
| folks in jail are simply too poor to afford bonding out
| before their trial date.
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| Well we can mince words, but functionally you are deprived
| of your freedom while being presumed innocent if the
| government decides it so.
| mcherm wrote:
| Perhaps you have a different term besides "prisoner" to
| describe someone who is imprisoned before their trial
| rather than after. But the parent comment is correct:
| whatever you call them, these people are not afforded all
| of the rights that the rest of us have.
| c0m wrote:
| Are you confusing the term 'prisoner' with 'criminal'?
| Prisoner is used to refer to people waiting for trial
| frequently, and dictionaries seem to support this
| definition.
| Syonyk wrote:
| _Good._ I 'll have to send them a check and mention it's to
| support this lawsuit. //EDIT: Printed, signed, and mailed. I
| wonder what junkmail I'll get as a result of _this_ donation...
|
| I've had the recent displeasure of seeing the jail system far
| more up close than I'd prefer (from the outside, someone lied and
| someone I know well ended up in jail for a few months, left with
| all charges dropped). It's an absolutely vile system, and letters
| were one of the very few ways one could actually have long form
| conversations without paying through the nose.
|
| Every aspect of the system is designed to extract money from
| those outside. You want to send messages? Great, install this
| app, add money (of course, a bunch of what you put in goes to
| mandatory fees for the privilege of putting money in), and then
| it ends up with pay-per-message with character limits (remember
| $0.25/text?), via an app that is... very permissions-grabby.
|
| Should you want to send money through the fee system for them to
| buy things at the internal store, you pay your fees, and then can
| either pay online via a "We need to know everything about you"
| app, or at an in person kiosk, which tries to collect all the
| same information, including a photo of you, your driver's
| license, and whatever else they can grab.
|
| Should you want to set up a video chat, you have to agree to a
| EULA that, among other things, includes "We will voiceprint
| anyone on the call and share that with law enforcement, and we
| will try to biometrically identify your facial features and do
| the same." And it's $7+ for 30 minutes.
|
| Of course, it's all logged and analyzed.
|
| I understand the need to keep communications somewhat monitored,
| but it feels far more like a blatant cash grab than anything
| else, which, given for-profit prisons, it almost certainly is.
|
| So, of course, the one thing that bypassed this (letters were
| opened, read, anything useful like tape on them was removed, etc)
| has to go away. Because how dare someone be able to actually
| interact with people outside. If they do that, why, they might
| not come right back in on release! And that would be Bad for
| Profits.
|
| Cram 80 people in a room built for 20? That's fine. Let them
| actually read letters? Can't have _that_!
|
| My opinion of the prison system was fairly low to start with, and
| it rather exceeded my expectations for just how utterly evil the
| whole thing is, through and through.
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| If Americans had to spend one night in some of their jails they
| would be shocked at the inhumanity of them. American jails such
| as King County Jail in Seattle and Rikers are some of the worst
| places to be held in the post-industrial world. Prison is in
| fact preferable because states are much more compotent than
| counties at managing these kinds of facilities. If you are ever
| facing time, hope for a year and a day because usually that is
| the determinant if you will serve in jail or prison. You want
| prison.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/11/nyregion/rikers-detainees...
| Wingman4l7 wrote:
| > King County Jail in Seattle
|
| What's notably bad about this one?
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| "Over the last year, people in the downtown jail have
| reported spending long hours in isolation -- 23 hours a day
| -- for multiple days on end. Lawyers have complained to
| reporters and county officials that their clients aren't
| getting regular changes of clothes, have had their medical
| appointments canceled and miss court dates because of a
| lack of adequate staffing, which extends their jail stays."
|
| https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/aclu-sues-king-
| cou...
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| [dead]
| drew55555 wrote:
| Recently went through the same thing. The person was moved
| twice so all the money on the app was lost since it was a
| different system at a different prison. Then at the last place,
| they changed vendors and the money on the app was lost again. I
| could've gotten it back, but I would've had to jump through a
| bunch of hoops and made a bunch of calls so I didn't worry
| about it which I'm sure is what they were hoping for by making
| it such an ordeal in the first place.
| Syonyk wrote:
| My wife is a very calm, patient person.
|
| One of very few times I've seen her _genuinely_ pissed off
| was after attempting to deal with some of the tech support
| for this system, because money ended up in the "wrong
| account" (via all the dark patterns you can imagine for the
| methods of donating), and the only way to move it was more or
| less for her to provide DNA samples to the prison (despite
| having nothing to do with anything) - it was that much
| information that they wanted to "maybe be able to help."
|
| The system is designed to extract money at all costs, and
| they seem very, _very_ good at doing so, via hook or by
| crook.
| rtkwe wrote:
| Even better the calls from prison can often get instamarked as
| spam by Google with little way to know they're potentially
| being silently dropped if you want an ounce of quiet from your
| cell phone. Recently saw a video from a guy who had a friend
| get incarcerated and they had a hell of a time getting calls
| through because of spam blocking.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| I'm curious about the lying: were charges filed against the
| liar? What was the lie? Did the liar have to pay the costs
| incurred?
| Syonyk wrote:
| I'm not certain what legal consequences she may face as a
| result - I also slightly don't care, as it's far enough
| outside the bounds of that which I can control that I don't
| have reason to pay close attention to it.
|
| > _were charges filed against the liar?_
|
| I don't know.
|
| > _What was the lie?_
|
| Particular claims made about events and the timing of said
| events were simply wrong, rather conveniently so. The defense
| eventually was able to point out the accused was literally
| living across the country, with solid evidence thereof, at
| the time of the claimed events.
|
| > _Did the liar have to pay the costs incurred?_
|
| I don't think said person has any resources to pay. But the
| accused didn't exactly have much to their name either. It was
| a mess all around.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Printed, signed, and mailed. I wonder what junkmail I'll get
| as a result of this donation.
|
| I've been regularly donating to the EFF for years, and one of
| the things I love about them is that I've never received junk
| mail as a result (that I know of). They send out periodic
| newsletter-type email, but unsubscribing from them is easy and
| actually works.
| Syonyk wrote:
| That would be nice...
|
| Most groups, if you send money to support them, seem to then
| turn around and sell your info to every other group on the
| planet that might be related, on the " _We got a live one!_ "
| list or something. It's impressive to watch, but it's also
| kept me from donating to certain groups, because it's such a
| royal pain to get off these lists. It typically takes 3-4
| "Please take me off your list!" requests to get anywhere to
| listen, and a few groups have ignored me so long that I've
| resorted to Sharpie obscenities scrawled on their return mail
| to get my point across. Some don't even listen then.
|
| But I could probably heat my house on the amount of "THIS
| OUTRAGE IS HAPPENING AND HERE IS A LOT OF... (over, please)
| INFORMATION ABOUT WHY YOU SHOULD BE UPSET AND... (next page
| please) WILL YOU DONATE????????" junk I get.
|
| I have a standing policy of not giving anything to groups
| that insult me by putting "directions of how to read a multi-
| page letter" at the bottom, though. It's a thing on almost
| everything I receive.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Yes, which is why I don't give money to organizations
| outside of a few exceptions. EFF is one of those
| exceptions.
| public_defender wrote:
| I got called up to handle a case in court and had to delete my
| draft comment. I'm glad I did. I think that this type of first-
| person experience is often lacking in these discussions.
|
| The true issue is that legacy technology like telephone and US
| mail are being removed in favor of the surveillance-capitalist
| dystopia described here. Yes, they read your mail and record
| your phonecalls, but the new generation of rights abuse is
| indescribably worse.
|
| Sibling comments mention that the EFF may not be the proper
| organization for this, but I think that it's valuable to have
| them in the conversation since they are experts in the policy
| implications, alternatives, and real impact of this type of
| user-hostile technology.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| Yeah this "digital solution" is just the prisons' responding to
| current behaviors.
|
| There's a story that people were high as kites while incarcerated
| and no one knew why for the longest. Then an officer saw someone
| lite up a page of the holy bible that was shipped in, and it all
| clicked. Shipped in bibles were soaked in narcotics - no one
| thought to check.
|
| So, it's really not a nefarious conspiracy - it's just trying to
| combat the ingenuity of the population. I wish that brain power
| was better tended to earlier in life since they've proven to be
| that brilliant.
| kepler1 wrote:
| I agree that forcing people to read their mail on only certain
| devices at certain times under supervision is not a human-being-
| respectful rule. But there is also the consideration that
| probably it's there for the reason of preventing drugs from being
| laced into the mail, even into the very paper.
|
| How about they do the simple step of scanning the mail, and
| reprinting it for the inmates to receive a physical copy? Of
| course, then you get into the problem of how much a markup is the
| shitty jail company going to apply to that.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Much more likely it's so they can charge $2 a minute for the
| privilege
| anigbrowl wrote:
| How about no.
| jstarfish wrote:
| > But there is also the consideration that probably it's there
| for the reason of preventing drugs from being laced into the
| mail, even into the very paper.
|
| Nah, my money's on this being the latest in a campaign of
| depriving prisoners of vices. First they came for the
| cigarettes.
|
| This is more likely about porn. Some of the most inventive smut
| I've ever seen was written by/to prisoners. You have to be a
| real poet laureate to get erotica past dedicated censors
| without _too_ many redactions.
|
| Moving this correspondence to digital, limited-access kiosks
| means you don't have any romantic hope to cling to (or jerk off
| to) back in your cell.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Drugs are pretty freely available in prison; you buy them from
| the guards. If that were the problem they were trying to
| resolve there are other paths to take. It isn't though.
| chaps wrote:
| Heh, yeah, good. Similarly, Chicago Police Department has denied
| FOIA requests of people in jail because they claim they'd have to
| provide the records as a CD.. arguing that the CD could be used
| as a weapon.
| newaccount2023 wrote:
| that is actually entirely reasonable
|
| a CD could be snapped and the shards used as a weapon
|
| keep in mind we are talking about things fashioned into weapons
| to kill other prisoners...the prison warden has an obligation
| to keep inmates from getting murdered
| duskwuff wrote:
| It is eminently unreasonable for a prison to give its own
| prisoner a copy of some records on a computer disc which the
| prisoner has no way of reading.
| adwi wrote:
| Perhaps they could use a printer?
| jen20 wrote:
| This can be entirely avoided by simply printing the material.
| jmclnx wrote:
| To me, that seems to break a law about people opening First Class
| Mail addressed to someone else. I thought doing that was a
| Federal Offense.
| sbaiddn wrote:
| They're in jail, by definition they have a restricted set of
| constitutional rights (they are incarcerated, ie they are not
| free!)
|
| For example, they can't own firearms. It may seem obvious that
| a person in jail can't possesses a gun, but this is a very
| specific and enumerated right in the Bill of Rights! This right
| is so enshrined that it is not obvious that it can be
| restricted after being released. See for example ACB's
| jurisprudence.
|
| So, if even a person released from jail is denied an enumerated
| right of the Bill of Rights (2A), it stands to reason that many
| other rights, (especially ones not as obviously
| constitutionally mandated) are also forfeited whilst actually
| in jail as chosen by the legislators and agreed by the courts.
|
| Example:
|
| - Freedom against search w/out a warrant. Inmates' cells are
| searched without a warrant
|
| - Right to life. Capitol punishment is (unfortunately) legal
| and certainly constitutional.
|
| - Right to vote.
|
| Note some of these are partially retained whilst in prison,
| just not in prison itself. For example, the cops cant search
| your house w/out a warrant just because you're in jail.
|
| They also retain some rights, fully or partially
|
| - They retain their fifth
|
| - They partially retain their first (they can worship as they
| please, but their freedom of speech is restricted).
|
| - They obviously retain their right against "cruel and unusual
| punishment", since the amendment's purpose is for the
| incarcerated. Devil's in the details, unfortunately.
|
| - they even retail some right against search in jail, for
| example the police cant listen in to conversations with
| council.
|
| So when the prison guards search one's prison mail, it is quite
| legal because you lost one's constitutional right against being
| searched.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > this is a very specific and enumerated right in the Bill of
| Rights
|
| I don't want derail this with a discussion of a highly
| politically charged topic, but this is a very disputed (and
| modern) interpretation of the second amendment. I just bring
| it up because there's no consensus about it, and reasonable
| people have different opinions.
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| As far as I know, the prohibition on opening someone else's
| mail (or interfering with delivery of the mail generally) is
| not based on the addressee's constitutional rights, but
| rather on an independent power granted to Congress by the
| Postal Clause. I assume there's some exemption to this for
| people in government custody, but I don't know exactly where
| it would be codified.
|
| > The postal powers of Congress embrace all measures
| necessary to insure the safe and speedy transit and prompt
| delivery of the mails. And not only are the mails under the
| protection of the National Government, they are, in
| contemplation of the law, its property. [1]
|
| [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C7
| -2/...
| giantg2 wrote:
| There's probably some obscure exception for government
| purposes. Or the government just won't prosecute if it
| interferes with their interests. Pretty common in all aspects
| really, even really simple stuff like off-duty cops not getting
| speeding tickets.
| thecyborganizer wrote:
| Your state certainly has a law permitting letters sent to
| prisoners to be opened and inspected. Mine does:
| Incoming mail may be opened, inspected for contraband and read
| by authorized institutional staff within the guidelines set
| forth in this policy.
|
| - RI Department of Corrections policy 24.01-7, 1.4.1.B.2
| (authorized by RI General Laws 42-56-1)
| sakras wrote:
| I could be wrong, but doesn't that violate the supremacy
| clause, since opening letters is a federal offense?
| thecyborganizer wrote:
| 18 USC 1702 only applies if you are opening someone else's
| mail because you want to "obstruct the correspondence, or
| to pry into the business or secrets of another". Presumably
| the courts have determined that this does not apply to
| prison officials opening mail addressed to prisoners.
| jcadam wrote:
| Parcels I can understand, but a letter? No.
| ccooffee wrote:
| Under 18 U.S. Code SS 1702[0], it would appear to be illegal
| on-its-face for USPS mail to be inspected by prison
| authorities.
|
| > Whoever takes any letter...before it has been
| delivered...with design...to pry...or opens...the same, shall
| be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five
| years, or both.
|
| However, there's certainly more to be said about this, as the
| ACLU's prisoner rights page[1] has this to say about mail in
| prison:
|
| > The First Amendment of the Constitution entitles prisoners to
| send and receive mail, but the prison or jail may inspect and
| sometimes censor it to protect security, using appropriate
| procedures.
|
| I've been unable to find any resources identifying under what
| statutory authority a prison may inspect mail, but I'm
| unfamiliar with legal stuff, so I think this is a "me-failure".
| I did find a 2021 article from The Intercept[3] which was
| informative on giving a similar-perspective, different-author
| from the submitted ACLU page.
|
| [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1702
|
| [1] https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/prisoners-
| rights#i-wan...
|
| [2] https://theintercept.com/2021/09/26/surveillance-privacy-
| pri...
| elzbardico wrote:
| I think that it is on the interest of society the inmates are
| allowed to access things that keep their mental health. Being
| imprisoned is already punishment enough, isolating them
| completely from society, relatives and friends is akin to
| torture, and will surely backfire.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Indeed. Some of this ties into the debate over the purpose of
| prison (is it to punish or rehabilitate?), but no matter where
| you fall in that argument, there is one absolute truth:
|
| The vast majority of these people will eventually be released.
| Even ignoring important issues like ethics, I think it's
| clearly in society's best interest that they are as healthy as
| possible when they get out.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| It is to punish. But the punishment is supposed to be the
| removal of liberty, nothing else.
| Xylakant wrote:
| If you accept that sooner or later, most people in prison
| will be released, then a major part of the prisons mission
| must be rehabilitation, aside from restoration of justice
| through punishment. Because if it's not, then people that
| are sent to prison will not improve and society will loose
| - both by removing a potentially productive member of
| society and by paying for the imprisonment.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| We have such a vengeance and retribution obsession in the US.
| Priaon should be about rehabilitation. Nothing else seems to be
| bringing down the recidivism rate, maybe it's worth a try.
| themagician wrote:
| The amount of Type I errors that get made (that we know about) in
| our (USA) justice system is really wild when you truly consider
| the consequences.
|
| The Innocent Project estimates that 1% of all prisoners are
| innocent. Hard to say if that number is accurate, but go ahead
| and cut it in half if you like. 0.5%. Doesn't seem like a lot in
| percentage terms. But of the 850 people in the jail system that
| the EFF is talking about here, that means at least 4 people are
| innocent and can't even receive a letter. Imagine if that was
| you. Man, it's hard to imagine. It's hard to even imagine.
|
| "Nationwide, over 500,000 people are incarcerated in county jails
| like the one in Redwood City, 427,000 of whom have not been found
| guilty and are still awaiting trial." Apply that same 0.5% here,
| and that's 2,135 people. There are literally thousands of
| innocent people in the prison system. Thousands. A bus seats like
| 50 people. Imagine 40 buses full of innocent people going to
| jail, and that's the reality we live in.
| mgurlitz wrote:
| > But of the 850 people in the jail system that the EFF is
| talking about here, that means at least 4 people are innocent
|
| Saying "at least 4" is pretty misleading here, since you're
| assuming the 0.5% is perfectly distributed. That estimate could
| be accurate without a single innocent in these specific 850.
| fitblipper wrote:
| True, but I think that misses the point. I think the comment
| was an attempt at facilitating empathy for the incarcerated
| who are in this situation since for most people they don't
| see themselves as criminals (even those who are in fact
| criminals) and it is harder to empathize with those who you
| see as being part of a different tribe/group/class.
|
| The fact is that these are fellow humans who are suffering,
| not because we decided as a society that this was what
| justice means, nor because this was the result of some study
| that figured out this would decrease recidivism, but just
| because some for profit institution decided they wanted to do
| something that would directly result in them suffering. That
| is enough for me to support this lawsuit.
| themagician wrote:
| It's not that misleading even if the distribution is not
| perfect. It would be extremely unlikely that not a single
| person is innocent.
|
| Given that this is a jail and not a prison, these people are
| mostly awaiting trial. From a certain point of view (innocent
| until proven guilty), _most_ of these people are innocent and
| they can 't even get a letter.
| Swizec wrote:
| > have not been found guilty and are still awaiting trial
|
| PIMA had an interview with a sheriff recently. The figure that
| stood out to me was when he said it takes an average of 1.8
| years for people in his jail to finally get to trial.
|
| 1.8 years in jail before they even decide if you're guilty.
| Hard to even imagine.
|
| https://freakonomics.com/podcast/chicagos-renegade-sheriff-w...
| jamiek88 wrote:
| Justice delayed is justice denied. That's a fundamental
| principle of common law.
|
| This is an outrage.
| biomcgary wrote:
| Not just common law. In the US, it is spelled out in the
| Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, the legal system has so
| distorted the plain meaning of "speedy trial" that we end
| up with insane, but "Constitutional" situations.
| mydogcanpurr wrote:
| I was going to ask what happened to the 6th amendment,
| but it sounds like it's in the garbage with all the
| others.
| landemva wrote:
| The people aren't willing to do anything about it, so yes
| it is forfeited. But wait until the Pres. campaigning
| starts again and people will get all worked up. My team
| go #1!
| bena wrote:
| I think part of the issue is the sheer scale of the
| problem.
|
| If I have 366 people in jail today awaiting trial and I
| try one case a day on average, it would be a year before
| you get to the last person.
|
| Yes, the problem is alleviated with more judges, more
| lawyers, and more juries, but that's the problem. Those
| resources are not infinite.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| They're not infinite, but I can't think of a concrete
| reason judges, lawyers, and juries aren't scalable to
| population. I can think of systemic limits, but none of
| them feel immutable.
| bena wrote:
| You have issues with training and promotion in the cases
| of judges and lawyers. Not insurmountable, but there will
| be a lag if we were to say "We need X% more lawyers now".
|
| You also have the issue that in order to guarantee a
| trial as soon as all non-people concerns are resolved,
| you'll need judges and lawyers doing nothing. Once you're
| at 100% capacity, any additional case has to wait. And
| the length of the wait is indeterminate.
|
| The real problem, people-wise, is juries. Juries are
| selected from the community at large. They're vetted and
| questioned. This takes time. And not for the criminals,
| but for the juries themselves. You could easily wind up
| with essentially professional juries, which runs counter
| to the idea of "jury of your peers".
|
| And beyond that, all these cases need to be tried
| somewhere.
| patmcc wrote:
| Then those 366 shouldn't be in jail. They're _innocent
| people_. The idea that we lock people up pre-trial is
| absolutely bonkers. Bail should be granted in all but the
| most extreme cases, and for any who aren 't granted bail
| they should be at trial ASAP.
| bena wrote:
| They're not technically innocent. Nor are they
| technically guilty. Their status is in question.
|
| And yes, the entire system is messed up. These people are
| being treated as definitely guilty when their status is
| in question. Sometimes for offenses that would not even
| require the level of incarceration they are at. You'll
| spend 15 months in jail awaiting trial for an offense
| that carries a 6 month maximum sentence. And even if they
| release you after 6 months because it would be cruel to
| incarcerate you "temporarily" for longer than the
| sentence to determine if you should even be incarcerated,
| it's not like you can get that 6 months back if you're
| not proven guilty. (Because the court doesn't prove
| you're innocent, just that it can't prove you're guilty,
| which is different.)
|
| But your last sentence comes back around to the problem
| of there not being enough capacity for these people. ASAP
| could very well be a year and a half.
|
| The system defers to assuming guilt because of fear. If
| you defer to assuming no guilt and you're wrong, you
| could be wrong in a very bad way. If you lock up an
| innocent man for 10 years, people will shake their heads
| and say "What a shame." If you let a murderer free while
| awaiting trial and they kill someone else, you are going
| to get absolutely fucked.
|
| And while the chance of the second is pretty low, it's
| not a chance any of them want to take. It's Pascal wager,
| but for crime. And we know crime and criminals exist.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| No. In the USA they are innocent until proven guilty.
|
| It's not a gray area.
|
| The status is changed upon conviction and only upon
| conviction.
|
| De jure at least.
|
| Not defacto as you went on to discuss.
| alistairSH wrote:
| For the vast majority of cases, bail shouldn't even be
| required.
| landemva wrote:
| SBF prosecutors got a big number bail, but nobody
| actually put up that cash. They pledged to pay later. So
| it's working for a financial scammer.
| marcus0x62 wrote:
| We could also try fewer laws. Just a thought.
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| This is actually more of a funding problem than a supply
| problem. In many jurisdictions, the criminal justice
| system is expected to pay for itself, in part or nearly
| in total.
| ok_dad wrote:
| If we're talking supply and demand, reducing the supply
| of prosecutions for victimlesss crimes stuff like drug
| use and possession, reproductive decisions, and etc.
| might help alleviate the demand at courthouses.
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| Agreed. Eating the hotdog from both ends makes sense
| here.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| Damn near all possession laws and laws where criminal
| intent is not required should be civil offenses without
| potential penalty of jail time.
| magila wrote:
| My understanding is that most people opt to waive their
| right to a speedy trial after consulting with a lawyer.
| The reason is invoking the right guarantees the
| prosecutor will go hard in the paint pressing the maximum
| possible charges and generally making the defendant's
| life as unpleasant as possible.
| Zak wrote:
| That's a significant problem. A right that is very risky
| to invoke is effectively denied.
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| I believe this distortion is largely the product of the
| fact that the justice system has simply not grown in
| order to keep up with the growth of the U.S. population
| over time nor has it modernized practices sufficiently to
| mitigate this disparity.
|
| For example, many matters which would've been settled
| rapidly 50 years ago are delayed because each time the
| judge schedules a subsequent hearing, it is put at the
| end of an already extensive schedule. Because the docket
| of each judge is so full, a follow-up hearing for a
| respondant which would've come 3-4 days or maybe a week
| later in the past is now booked weeks or months down the
| road. I don't refer to the time delays which are intended
| to accommodate preparation of defense or to provide
| discovery. Totally perfunctory appearances can be spread
| out over weeks or months.
|
| The system has also failed to grown or adapt to
| accommodate the significant growth in chargeable
| offenses. Many more things are a criminal matter now than
| were 70 years ago.
| prirun wrote:
| > I believe this distortion is largely the product of the
| fact that the justice system has simply not grown in
| order to keep up with the growth of the U.S. population
|
| I believe this distortion is because small crimes like
| being caught with a joint are causing our jails and legal
| systems to become overloaded. The solution is not to grow
| the justice system but rather to make sure we don't
| overload it with laws & violations that are unimportant.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| Same with congress. Proportional to population
| representation in congress, even at Wyoming population
| level would see around 3000 representatives.
|
| There's a 700k to one mismatch and too much power in the
| hands of too few people.
|
| There would be a lot more room for more political parties
| too, breaking up the duopoly can only be good regardless
| of your leanings.
|
| The tents are too broad.
|
| Interesting to think about.
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| Iteresting episode of Bruce Carlson's 'My History Can
| Beatup Your Politics' where he goes over the history of
| house size. Hopefully this link works for the non-subs.
|
| http://www.myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.com/repre.mp3
| mlyle wrote:
| > The Innocent Project estimates that 1% of all prisoners are
| innocent.
|
| It's worse than this.
|
| The Innocence Project estimates 2-10% of convictions are
| wrongful.
|
| But even worse, many of the people we're talking about are
| still awaiting trial-- presumably they are innocent at a
| greater rate than those convicted.
| tyingq wrote:
| There's probably also a fair amount of "guilty of a lesser
| crime, but pressured by the plea bargain system to plea to a
| greater crime".
|
| And, of course, innocent or not, there's merit in the
| argument of whether they should be able to receive mail, have
| actual physical books in their possession, and so on.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| > There's probably also a fair amount of "guilty of a
| lesser crime, but pressured by the plea bargain system to
| plea to a greater crime".
|
| "You're a hick and this is Berkley California. Are you
| stupid? Take the deal. It doesn't matter that your offense
| is technically the lesser one and not the one they're
| charging you with. A jury trial would not go well for you
| here."
|
| -their lawyer, probably (and they're not wrong)
| weaksauce wrote:
| I just read about a guy that was jailed for 30 years with a
| sentence of 400+ years because the 800 years that the
| prosecutors wanted were too harsh so the judge decided to
| make the sentence 400ish years to be "fair". the crime this
| innocent man did that put him in jail for 30 years before
| being released was driving a getaway car while two other men
| robbed someone at gunpoint. nobody died to my knowledge. he
| couldn't give up the information because he was innocent so
| the prosecutors asked for that because he wasn't telling them
| what he couldn't know. crazy travesty of justice there. I'm
| sure there are tons more like this.
| Tostino wrote:
| Good ole' Florida. It's not the first and won't be the last
| miscarriage of justice this state carries out.
| Syonyk wrote:
| > _But even worse, we 're talking about many of people who
| are still awaiting trial-- presumably they are innocent at a
| greater rate than those convicted._
|
| "Awaiting trial" or even "Awaiting details of the charges to
| be hammered out" seem to be depressingly time unrestricted. I
| sat in on some of the hearings, and there was a lot of "Well,
| we're not ready, can we push this out for 2 weeks?" sort of
| scheduling going on.
|
| The person I'm familiar with this from basically spent 2
| months in jail (not prison, apparently the difference is that
| prison is nicer, jail is really just a holding tank) on false
| charges that were then dropped as they were "literally
| impossible." He wasn't in the _state_ when the claimed events
| happened.
| ashwagary wrote:
| Some countries like El Salvador require court dates and
| evidence of a crime to be submitted within a fixed period
| of time (2-4 weeks?), or a suspect has to be released.
| Perhaps this kind of system will help US courts with their
| priorities.
| aqme28 wrote:
| Kalief Browder. Was awaiting trial at Rikers for years
| before charges were eventually dropped. In total he spent
| over two years in _solitary confinement_ while never being
| tried for the petty robbery he was falsely accused of.
| Killed himself when he got out.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| >Killed himself when he got out.
|
| Hopefully somewhere and in a manner inconvenient for the
| responsible parties...
| aqme28 wrote:
| > People tell me because I have this case against the
| city I'm all right. But I'm not all right. I'm messed up.
| I know that I might see some money from this case, but
| that's not going to help me mentally. I'm mentally
| scarred right now. That's how I feel. [There] are certain
| things that changed about me[,] and they might not
| [change] back. ... Before I went to jail, I didn't know
| about a lot of stuff, and, now that I'm aware, I'm
| paranoid. I feel like I was robbed of my happiness.
| kingkawn wrote:
| I participated in the exoneration effort for a kid who was
| arrested at 15 and didn't even go to trial at all until age
| 19. At the trial the judge denied him the right to call
| expert witnesses that led to a successful appeal, and then
| finally after 8 years of his prime youth lost to
| incarceration the charges were all dropped.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Finally think of the large number of people imprisoned for
| violation of laws which ultimately don't matter, like all the
| people in prison for lower level drug related offenses. One
| of my favorite authors, Peter McWilliams, died while facing
| federal charges. I spoke to his mother once and she said that
| during this time they denied him access to vital medication,
| and she believes this led to his death. His crime was
| providing marijuana to cancer patients, something which had
| been legalized in CA at the time!
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/26/us/peter-mcwilliams-
| dies-...
| akiselev wrote:
| _> "Nationwide, over 500,000 people are incarcerated in county
| jails like the one in Redwood City, 427,000 of whom have not
| been found guilty and are still awaiting trial." Apply that
| same 0.5% here, and that's 2,135 people. There are literally
| thousands of innocent people in the prison system. Thousands. A
| bus seats like 50 people. Imagine 40 buses full of innocent
| people going to jail, and that's the reality we live in._
|
| Nitpick: that's 427,000 innocent people incarcerated, not
| 2,135. They all deserve the presumption of innocence.
| from wrote:
| The decision to grant bail is in part based on the strength
| of the evidence and the danger to the community calculation
| is also in part based off past convictions. Not saying that
| is entirely fair, but the truth is most people in jail really
| are guilty which is the reason voters either don't care about
| this issue or even want to make the system more stacked
| against defendants.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| That's not the truth at all. In fact, when community funds
| start paying bail for those who couldn't afford it, the
| majority end up having the case dismissed, because there
| never was any evidence - there was just the threat to let
| them sit in jail until they plead guilty.
| coryrc wrote:
| That's cherry-picked results from a particular subset,
| also ignoring that many similar people were also released
| without paying any bail.
| john_the_writer wrote:
| They deserve the presumption of innocence by the law. That
| does not in fact mean they are actually innocent.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| I'm white and if shit hits the fan can scrape enough money
| together to hire a decent lawyer.
|
| People don't "imagine if that was you" because they KNOW it
| would not happen to them.
| themagician wrote:
| This is what I assume as well. But this is just an assumption
| I have. I don't even know exactly where it comes from. Is it
| correct? I just assume I can pay my way out... but what if I
| can't? I would think it really depends what you are accused
| of. I really don't know what I'd be able to afford.
|
| And it's even more bizarre to think that's just how it works.
| landemva wrote:
| A lot of it depends on how often the prosecutor and the
| judge go to social events and golfing. Most defense
| attorneys can not beat the corrupt system and aren't
| willing to risk their career for one client.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-15 23:02 UTC)