Categories
Tips & Facts

What is Voting in Jail Like?

The past midterm election brought voters to the polls in huge numbers. In fact, voter turnout for the 2018 midterms was over 50 percent of the voting-eligible population, which is the highest voter turnout for a midterm election in over a century.

But for a significant portion of U.S. citizens, voting wasn’t an option.

Voting in jail is a right mainly granted to inmates convicted of misdemeanors, or those who currently reside in pre-trial detention. Many states revoke a Felon’s right to vote, and that fact has sparked much debate.

Should Prisoners Vote?

The general idea behind inmate disenfranchisement is that if prisoners vote, then those who have broken the law will be able to shape and change the laws to their liking. The majority of Americans do not believe that voting in jail is a right that should be given to all inmates.

However, there has been a growing trend in recent decades to reinstate voting rights for former inmates. According to a Cambridge study only 31 percent of Americans endorse allowing people currently in prison to vote, while 60 percent favor allowing those who have exited prison to vote.

One of the highlights of this past midterm was the approved Florida Amendment 4. This amendment was written to “automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole and probation.”

ProCon.org explains that only two states currently extend full voting rights to those with felony convictions (Maine and Vermont). In these states, voting rights are guaranteed even while the citizen is in prison.

The majority of states allow voting rights to be granted back to released prisoners after both the completion of their sentence plus parole/probation. However, sometimes additional action (like a Governor’s pardon) is required to regain voting rights. In addition, there are 10 states in which felons lose their vote permanently (NV, WY, AZ, IA, KY, TN, MS, AL, FL, DE).

Because these rules are so different from state to state, many inmates may hear conflicting messages regarding their ability to vote. Some may not even bother trying to figure out their eligibility, let alone the specific procedures required to do so from their incarceration facility.

An Informed Voting Base

Take the case of Dustin Cordova of Denver CO who said, “I didn’t know I could vote, period, because I had been in jail for felonies.”

According to the local Channel 4 CBS Denver news, Cordova had served his time for his past felonies and didn’t know that he could vote while in jail for other charges. The Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition had to provide Cordova with information before he knew that he could vote in the 2018 midterm.

Information is extremely important when it comes to voting, especially when voting in a correctional environment, where information doesn’t flow as freely.

And though there are jails that make the effort to inform inmates when they are able to vote, sometimes that information is not available to inmates. According to the Oregon Public Broadcasting group, a 2016 investigation by Disability Rights Washington “found that only a handful of Washington state’s 38 county jails have a policy for letting inmates vote and few of those facilities actually follow those procedures.” This resulted in thousands of eligible voters being wrongfully disenfranchised.

The accessibility of information for prisoners — sometimes provided through communication with outside human rights groups — is essential to insuring that eligible voters know if voting in jail is possible for them.

Eligibility is only half of the inmate-voting question, however.

In order to be an informed voter, a person has to be exposed to the issues and the positions of the available candidates. This requires research on the part of the voter, and non-biased research is commonly conducted by visiting a library, reading the news, or by searching on the internet.

Unsurprisingly, internet access is often very limited for inmates.

Technology and the Voter

In a past blog post, we stressed the importance of inmates maintaining contact with their family and friends. It’s good for the inmates, their families, and society at large because consistent communication reduces recidivism.

Likewise, ensuring that eligible inmates have all the information they need to vote is also a public good.

The decisions that are made during elections have long-lasting effects. That being the case, many inmates want to be sure that their interests and the interests of their children are recognized.

Remember Dustin Cordova? Knowing that he could vote in jail not only surprised him, it also gave him a sense of responsibility. Channel 4 CBS Denver reported Cordova saying, “My kids are growing up, and I can have an input into their future so it was a shocker to know that I could vote.”

Whatever side of the inmate-voting debate you fall on, it’s vitally important that our nation’s incarceration facilities can deliver what the law requires. Should a state require substantive voting access for inmates, Encartele will be there ready to help jails and prisons provide it.

Categories
Tips & Facts

How Law Enforcement has
Adapted to the Digital Age

One could wager that technology has equally blessed and cursed law enforcement agencies around the globe.

On one hand, criminals are executing complex crimes behind the safety of a keyboard—moving money and people to new locations with a mouse click. On the other hand, the very technology giving criminals an arena is the same thing allowing law enforcement agencies to pinpoint drug cartel drop points and sex-trafficking routes.

Fighting Fire with Fire

At a basic level, the everyday patrolman has a myriad of technology options that, simply put, were luxury items at one time. Technologies, like dash cameras, social media outlets and information sharing platforms, are prevalent in the nation’s law enforcement agencies, according to research conducted by Kevin Strom for the U.S. Department of Justice.

Storm’s research indicated there are some major differences in what large agencies have at their disposal compared to smaller ones, but the reality is there are few agencies that haven’t seen some sort of a technology upgrade in recent years. And it would be safe to assume there likely is not a single agency that hasn’t been affected by the use of technology.

Criminals have capitalized on the fact that technology is rapidly evolving—a fact not lost on law enforcement agencies around the world.

From November 2017 to April 2018, 30.1 percent of web application attack traffic originated from IP addresses in the United States, according to Statistica.com.

These statistics also show that our nation was “the country most targeted by web attacks, suffering from over 238.6 million attacks during the fourth quarter of 2017.”

Because of this, law enforcement agencies across the United States and abroad are being forced to fight fire with fire, employ new strategies, implement new methods and change the way they handle cyber-crime, by becoming experts in the arena.

A new wave of computer science experts are making their way into the law enforcement ring to square up with terrorists, gangs, shady business owners and disruptive computer geeks looking to make a name for themselves.

For instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has made great strides in shifting its thought process by diving into the world of cyber security to meet threats head on.

Armed with Computer Science

According to the FBI’s Cyber Crime webpage, some of the changes the bureau has made to combat the ever-increasing threat of cyber-crime include: the establishment of an entire Cyber Division, specially trained cyber squads in its headquarters and in each of its 56 field offices, Cyber Action Teams, Computer Crimes Task Forces and several growing partnerships with other federal agencies such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, among others.

Agencies across the nation are well-aware of the importance of cyber security, which is why job titles such as Information Security Analyst, Computer Forensics Investigator and Chief Information Security Officer exist today.

Thanks to degrees in computer science, law enforcement agencies are able to recruit highly skilled graduates with the knowledge necessary to stay one step ahead of the cyber-crime threats.

But that, unfortunately, does not mean the occurrences of cyber-crime will suddenly dry up and disappear. It means that criminals will be educating themselves and continuing to take things to the next level.

Instances of ransomware or “malicious software which locks a user’s device or data until they pay a ransom,” have steadily increased since 2013, according to a Forbes article written by Kate O’Flaherty.

Fortunately, many agencies offer recommendations to help combat the constant threat. The FBI’s Cyber Crime webpage encourages organizations to make sure preventative measures are being taken—“both in terms of awareness training for employees and robust technical prevention controls,” as well as having “a solid business continuity plan in the event of a ransomware attack.”

Recognizing the warning signs can be the difference between business as usual and files rendered useless.

O’Flaherty’s article quoted cybersecurity strategist Adenike Cosgrove, saying,‘“Cybercriminals have found new ways to exploit the human factor—the instincts of curiosity and trust that lead well-intentioned people to play into the hands of the attacker. This could be in the form of a disguised URL or seemingly benign attachment, but all it takes is one click and the ransomware can take hold immediately.”’

Humans make mistakes, but luckily law enforcement agents who are highly trained in computer science are on the front lines to ensure cyber criminals are caught when attacks do occur and make it their mission to stop additional attacks before they even start.

Categories
Tips & Facts

Mental Health &
the American Jail

“You can’t do anything right. You don’t matter to anyone. You’re worthless.”

Mental illness can be its own prison. When it’s your own mind making you feel trapped and hopeless, the difference between reality and fiction can begin to blur.

According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, “Nearly 1 in 25 (10 million) adults in America live with a serious mental illness.”

It’s incredibly likely that someone you know or meet will have experienced a mental illness at one point in their life. While there are organizations and individuals helping to de-stigmatize mental illness and champion mental health awareness, it’s still taboo and tough to openly discuss.

Asking for help can feel like the hardest possible course of action, but even when people do ask, access to mental health services can be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming.

Now imagine trying to deal with these issues while being incarcerated.

Mental Health in American Jails

The Bureau of Justice Statistics published a report concerning mental health problems, finding that “…more than half of all prison and jail inmates had a mental health problem, including 705,600 inmates in State prisons, 78,800 in Federal prisons, and 479,900 in local jails.”

These staggering figures reveal a tremendous problem. More than one million Inmates across the country must adjust to incarceration while dealing with their inner turmoil.

Offering more education and counseling programs could help afflicted inmates. Having a GED program or small-group meetings (like the ones used in Alcoholics Anonymous) could curb symptoms of mental illnesses like depression or anxiety. Learning about other people who have experienced similar hardships is a great way to set a person’s mind at ease.

In addition, discussing personal experiences with a therapist could also make the adjustment less harsh. Therapy and counseling carry the stigma of only being for people who have a “real” problem, but why not make services available to all inmates? Having a mental illness does not make inmates more hostile or any less human.

It’s important to think about these possible treatment options because many people turn to drugs and alcohol to cope with their mental health problems.

The National Bureau of Economic Research found that people who have been diagnosed with a mental health disorder consumed 69 percent of all the alcohol consumed nationwide, along with 84 percent of the consumed cocaine and 68 percent of the consumed cigarettes. This validates the theory that substance abuse and other addictions are used as a coping mechanism for dealing with mental illness.

In a Boston Globe article by members of the Spotlight team, “The Harvard-led Boston Reentry Study found in 2014 that inmates with a mix of mental illness and addiction are significantly less likely than others to find stable housing, work income, and family support in the critical initial period after leaving prison…” These risk factors directly affect an individual’s ability to resist criminal influences and escape the cycle of recidivism.

What can we do to help those with mental health disorders post-incarceration?

Outside Treatment Options

Currently, the criminal justice systems lack rehabilitation options for those on their way out of jails. Though there are transition programs in every state, funding and participation are huge factors in whether a program will endure.

Re-entry programs help to combat post-incarceration syndrome, but don’t necessarily assist in finding counseling options for ex-offenders. One reason that felons re-offend is because they fall into the same patterns and groups they were involved with pre-incarceration. But recidivism will decrease if inmates are prepared for the outside world.

Continuing therapy post-incarceration and offering community engagement opportunities could ease the isolation that comes with being released. Giving ex-offenders a purpose or place in society could make the difference as to whether or not they re-offend.

Using Technology for Mental Health in Prison

Video-chatting and live-streaming have become prevalent forms of inmate communication for many counties. Some correctional facilities now offer video visitation services and that can be used to help inmates dealing mental illness.

Offering a way to live chat with a therapist could be another incentive to acquiring such technologies. Inmates lose touch with the outside world during incarceration, and providing a way to stay connected could decrease their feelings of isolation. If the feeling of isolation increases anxiety and worsens depression in normal people, the effects must be exceptionally strong in a prison or jail.

Correctional facilities house many inmates who have mental illness and providing solutions like therapy and video visitation can help combat these emotions. Live video-chatting offers a way for inmates to connect with a therapist on the outside who could possibly help them post-incarceration.

Unfortunately, there is no “best” way to mitigate every mental illness, but providing options like therapy or video visitation in a correctional facility would be excellent first steps.

Categories
Tips & Facts

Is America Facing a Digital
Dementia Epidemic?

It’s been happening everywhere, and it’s absurd.

At every social function. Everywhere. People are glued to their phones. Caressing their magic screens, like a young tabby with a catnip addiction. Is social media really that remarkable? Or is FOMO (fear of missing out) causing the addiction? Whatever the cause, this captivating digital euphoria may be causing digital dementia.

German neuroscientist, Manfred Spitzer, coined the term, digital dementia, in his 2012 book by the same name. The term does not mean to make light of diseases commonly associated with the word dementia, like Alzheimer’s disease and other similar conditions with symptoms of confusion, disorientation and impaired memory. Digital dementia is all too real and causes similar symptoms.

What Do We Mean By “Digital Dementia?”

The term, digital dementia, describes how overusing digital technology is resulting in the deterioration of cognitive abilities in a manner more commonly seen in patients who have suffered a head injury or psychiatric illness. The idea is explored in numerous studies, articles and books around the world.

The consensus among scientists seems to be that our brains follow a sort of “use-it-or-lose-it” policy, which can be dangerous in an age where we outsource our memory to electronic devices and/or search engines rather than our own memory.

Compulsive Internet Use has been identified as a mental health issue in countries around the world, including the United States. It is a particularly acute problem in South Korea. According to a New York Times article, ninety percent of homes in South Korea connect to cheap, high-speed broadband. Social life for the young revolves around dim internet parlors which are on practically every street corner.

But South Korea is doing a great deal to rectify the problem, including government-funded programs like an internet detox boot camp to treat the worst cases. In the U.S., an estimated nine million people may be at risk for the disorder. Only a handful of clinics do anything to treat the problem.

According to a national Kaiser Family Foundation study, kids in the U.S. between the ages of eight and 18, spend more than seven-and-a-half hours a day with technology. As a result of media multitasking (texting, phone calls, listening to music and surfing the web), they actually cram 11 hours of media content into those seven-and-a-half hours.

This level of technology absorption is concerning, and the effects it produces are not limited to digital dementia and cognitive decline but also an intense feeling of loneliness.

How Modern Technologies Inflame Loneliness

A cartoon woman crying with a speech bubble reading "Jeff ended his text with a period! My life is over!"

Sherry Turkle is a clinical psychologist and the founder of MIT’s Initiative on Technology and Self. She is a sort of anthropologist, studying humanity’s interactions with computers. In her book, “Alone Together,” Turkle reflects on her observations of people/computer interaction since the ’80s. (An NPR interview with the author can be found here: ‘Alone Together’.)

The advantages of modern smart phones and constant connection to social media are obvious. We have more control over conversations. It’s easy to ignore a call from someone you don’t like or end a texting conversation whenever you like. Online, you can be anyone you desire to. No one is as interesting and or as constantly happy as they are on their Facebook profile. Online games, like “World of Warcraft,” allow people to be who they would rather be—the old appear young, the weak strong, the unattractive beautiful, etc.

However, Turkle believes that the perceived weaknesses of “normal” conversations are actually strengths, beneficial and essential to human development. In her book, she says “…being alone can start to seem like a precondition for being together, because it is easier to communicate if you can focus, without interruption, on your screen.”

But being constantly plugged in is isolating people from reality and creating loneliness, and Turkle says having face-to-face interaction teaches “skills of negotiation, of reading each other’s emotion, of having to face the complexity of confrontation, dealing with complex emotion.”

According to a Foundation for Economic Education article, technology gives people a compelling reason not to talk to one another. Our brains are wired to pay attention to distraction. Modern technology makes that easy. We can survive without talking to anyone. People work from their homes, order groceries and talk to friends without any real physical interaction. But what seems harmless and convenient in the present moment can, in the long term, disintegrate the web of community people need for a healthy lifestyle.

People easily get stuck in situations where online interaction only occurs with similar-minded people, creating an echo chamber. Loneliness at this level leads to seriously risky behaviors.

The Rebounding Effect of Echo Chambers

Living in the digital age has given rise to an “Age of Loneliness” according to author George Monbiot, and it’s easy to see.

Results from a Cigna national study found that nearly half of Americans report sometimes or always feeling alone (46 percent) or left out (47 percent). Only around half of Americans (53 percent) have meaningful in-person social interactions, such as having an extended conversation with a friend or spending quality time with family, on a daily basis. Most other interaction is online.

These results are astounding, especially when looking at the negative effects loneliness can have on a person. Loneliness causes negative health effects like raised blood pressure, disrupted sleep, diminished immune system, depression, paranoia, anxiety as well as suicide.

Loneliness feeds on loneliness, and creates a frame of mind that is debilitating. It breeds harmful emotions like anger, blame, resentment and fear. It can also cause alcohol and drug abuse. The two tend to create a cycle. Loneliness can lead to addiction or result from it.

Addiction is a common reaction to loneliness, but so is criminal behavior. People dealing with feelings of loneliness often feel an inability to cope with problems in usual ways.

Research suggests that loneliness has often been the cause of stealing and vandalism in students, and that the most common reason criminals, convicted of rape, committed their crime was due to feelings of loneliness, inefficiency and rejection.

When one is caught in this pit of loneliness, a ladder is required to climb out. That ladder cannot be provided solely through the social media world. A support system is required. We need family, friends, coworkers and caregivers to put down their phones and physically be there. There to cherish experiences with us and help us through the rocky times, in our day-to-day lives.

Categories
Tips & Facts

How ICS Providers Avoid
Paying Interstate Commissions

Have you ever actually tried to read an Inmate Phones contract? It’s about as easy as opening a clam with your bare hands. Generally speaking, U.S. contract law is not meant to be understood by the average person (or person, really), but whenever a large amount of money is at stake, the legalese is bound to be even muddier. For correctional facilities, this can mean losing out on thousands of dollars due to small, seemingly innocuous, but confusing clauses. For example, how would you interpret the following contract provision regarding interstate calling?

*Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Agreement, In accordance with Federal Communications Commission 47 CFR Part 64 [WC Docket No. 12-375; FCC13-113] – Rates for Interstate Calling Services – effective February 11, 2014, no commission shall be paid on revenues earned through the completion of Interstate calls of any type placed from the Facility(s).”

So what do you think? Would it be reasonable to conclude that an FCC ruling exists that prevents commissions from being paid on interstate calls? It would certainly seem so.

This is an actual clause that’s been included in hundreds of inmate phone contracts, and is still widely used by many major ICS providers. It has also cost county jails nationwide countless dollars in lost commissions. And that’s a shame, considering it basically means “We’re not paying you because we don’t want to.”

Let’s look a little closer to see if the FCC Ruling itself might shed some light here. The FCC did in fact take action to limit rates for interstate calling services, and that action was dated effective February 11, 2014, but nowhere in that ruling (and I do mean nowhere) did the FCC take any action directly against commissions being paid for the interstate call type. (You can download the ruling here).

It’s just not true that the FCC prevents Inmate Phone Companies from paying commissions on interstate call revenue. The FCC has stated that “site commissions do not constitute a legitimate cost to the providers of providing ICS,” but that’s an entirely different assertion. (The exact wording comes from this 2016 FCC rule).

Legitimate costs can be passed through without markup to the end consumer — credit card transaction fees are a great example. But because ICS providers can’t pass their commission payments through like other legitimate costs, some providers use the FCC ruling as an excuse for not paying interstate commissions at all.

And that would be okay, if these ICS providers were honest about what they are doing. Instead, they try to fool the County by framing this negotiable topic as predetermined by the FCC. Maybe you’ve heard this line before: “Sorry Sheriff, we can’t pay you an interstate commission because the FCC won’t let us.”

In reality, your providers are really saying: “We’d rather keep all this interstate call revenue for ourselves.” They’re just using the FCC as a scapegoat.

Here’s the bottom line. The FCC won’t let ICS providers charge more than $0.21 per minute on interstate debit/prepaid calls, and commissions on those calls can’t be passed through to the end-consumer. If your ICS provider isn’t efficient enough to make a profit under these circumstances (or if they just don’t want to share any of the revenue with you), maybe it’s time to renegotiate your agreement — or find a provider that pays you a fair commission on true gross billed revenue.