> Of course, jails could offer video calling without shutting down in-person visits. But the fact that jails get a share of the proceeds from these services creates a perverse incentive for them to end in-person visits. As long as in-person visits are available, many family members will take the time to drive to prison and see their loved one. But if only video visits are available on site, more family members will opt for the convenience and privacy they get by calling from home.
You're not "opting for convenience and privacy" here; you're making the only choice you have in the face of prisons looking to make a couple of dollars.
What they mean is that once they stop in person visits you can opt for “privacy and conscience” of calling in from home for a fee vs. using the video terminal at the jail for free.
I had to reread this part to figure out that is what they meant.
This is a horrible additional punishment for the prisoners. Unless this punishment is reflected in shorter sentences (which it won’t be) this must stop.
What would a prison look like that is designed with the right incentives?
I’ve heard the main challenge is that Judges and DAs are (often) elected. If you err on the side of putting someone in jail for too long or who doesn’t deserve it it’s not as outrageous to the community as if someone slips through the cracks, gets out early and murders someone, etc.
So there is huge pressure to avoid false negatives but not so much on false positives, so to speak.
Other things too, and there have been cases of illegal kickbacks to judges for sentencing.
Right now we seem to be optimizing for number of people in jail per capita - and we lead the world in this.
We ought to consider optimizing for lower crime in general (which is much broader than the prison system) but recidivism seems like a good place to start.
There are many off the shelf programs that are shown to reduce recidivism, we could start there.
I’m also curious about a model of cooperatively run prisons. Perhaps even a model where when you are set free it means you are offered a job in the prison for higher pay since you understand the system and have gained respect of other inmates.
This would also allow for mentorship and ongoing relationships.
Ideas that seem worth exploring are:
Natural outdoor spaces where prisoners farm, build their own tiny homes, meditate, get access to psychedelic therapy, learn leadership skills, make stuff, art, etc.
You essentially create a “life / society” incubator for the types of beliefs, behaviors relationships and systems that you are optimizing for in the greater community at large.
Why couldn't the arrangement be that a repeat "guest" is paid for 10 or 20% less each time they stay? (To be strictly fair, that structure should apply to parole officers, half-way houses, and other providers working to rehabilitate release prisoners.)
I've given this 30s of thought so I'm more than happy to be shown to be very wrong about this idea.
Fun idea, another 30 seconds of thought: flip it around and just pay the prisoner to stay out. You get $10k for every year you don't return to prison after leaving, for some amount of time. Also might help ex-cons stay on their feet.
Adjust figures and timing as necessary so that it's worth your while, but doesn't incentivize gaming the system too much. This is cheaper to the state than the prison time anyway.
1. You now have an incentive to commit a crime and spend time in prison. People will rightfully ask why they don't get $10k a year for not breaking the law.
2. It could reduce recidivism, and isn't strictly punitive. It's incompatible with the way the US runs prisons.
#1a is a question of figures. It would likely work better for crimes with unnecessarily long sentences, or that are unlikely to be repeated. The goal is to help keep people afloat while they build a new life. Worst case, some amount of "fraud" is probably expected and just built into the cost of the program.
#1b might be improved with proper framing. Effective politicians are good at spinning proposals a particular way. E.g. depending on who you're presenting the idea to, emphasize how the offer goes away if you break strict conduct rules, or maybe you can only do it once, or you talk about it in terms of how long it will take for the state to earn a profit, etc.
You're not "opting for convenience and privacy" here; you're making the only choice you have in the face of prisons looking to make a couple of dollars.