Jails banned visits in “quid pro quo” with prison phone companies, lawsuits say
arstechnica.com
Civil rights group sues two counties, says hundreds more have banned visits.

Across the United States, hundreds of jails have eliminated in-person family visits over the last decade. Why has this happened? The answer highlights a profound flaw in how decisions too often get made in our legal system: for-profit jail telecom companies realized that they could earn more profit from phone and video calls if jails eliminated free in-person visits for families. So the companies offered sheriffs and county jails across the country a deal: if you eliminate family visits, we’ll give you a cut of the increased profits from the larger number of calls. This led to a wave across the country, as local jails sought to supplement their budgets with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash from some of the poorest families in our society.

  • AeonFelis@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    7 months ago

    What’s your argument exactly? That it’s not inherently corrupt because we’d be in a big hard-to-solve problem if it’s inherently corrupt, and therefore we must agree that’s it’s not inherently corrupt?

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      13·
      7 months ago

      My point is that if you or they think the Justice System is inherently corrupt then you would be advocating for a world without said system of reform, which would be worse. I wanted to understand how somebody who thinks that would justify the lack of accountability for criminals who harm others, but instead I’m walking away realizing that people don’t know the definition of the word “Inherently” and were just repeating what they thought was a figure of speech.

      Inherently means inseparable, intrinsic, a permanent quality. If it is inherently corrupt then it cannot ever be fixed by definition.

      • AeonFelis@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        7 months ago

        1. You are giving infinite leeway to the justice system. A justice system can get so bad that it’s better not to have one at all. Even if you place zero value on the human rights of the prisoners, if a justice system can create more crime (for example, by ruining the criminals’ families financially, pushing them to break the law in order to get by. Or by ruining the lives of one-time offenders which will make them repeat offenders) than the crime it prevents (by detaining criminals and by deterring would-be criminals), then it’s better without it even if it means that crime will have no consequences.

          Is the American justice system that bad? Probably not. But if you do place some value on the human rights of the prisoners, and if you take into account the damage done by the prisons and prison accessories industry lobbying? I wouldn’t be so sure that its effect is net positive…

        2. “Inherently corrupt” is a property of the system, not of the problem it tries to solve. It does not mean that any conceivable justice system would be corrupt - what it means that any reform that is not deep enough to essentially be equivalent to scrapping it away and rebuilding it anew is bound to fail. The original statement was “the system is inherently corrupt”. You changed it to “the vague concept of a Justice System is inherently corrupt”. That’s a huge difference.

          Maggoty’s claim, if I understand it correctly, is that the incentives behind the system (profiting from the prisoners) are the problem, and as long as they are not rooted out no reform will help. That’s the “inherent” part.

        • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          11·
          7 months ago

          If you think that the justice system can be fixed then you do not believe it is inherently flawed or corrupt. Those are mutually exclusive definitions. I don’t think that having absolutely no justice system is better than what we currently have, nor do I think scrapping it entirely will lead to a better future for anybody involved, and I’m afraid that far too many people think exactly that.