I have gotten a schooling lately in accepting collect calls from inmates. I pay some 3 cents a minute for long distance. When I take an (automated) collect call from the Cumberland County jail (in Fayetteville), it cost me about $1 a minute. Wow, what a deal.
To get that call, you have to created a prepaid account with GlobalTel. If you use a credit card to create that account, you pay a 19% surcharge.
We put $50 in the account on Friday and it was gone after 4 calls from Fayetteville.
So, at minimum, we have the state of NC supporting usury.
Keep in mind that someone in a jail is still presumed innocent. They need to be able to mount a defense against the charges against them. Their calls are recorded. The state does this to their families. An American tradition to screw the poor? I hope not.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
How organizations police themselves
Color me a skeptic on this subject. To have the police decide if a citizen complaint is valid is kind of useless. All parties to the investigation are paid from the same pool. Same for the prison system. It's an exercise in futility, in my view.
Case in point: Prison guards I believe are a prime source of cell phones, drugs, contraband, etc for inmates since they can be paid for their services and it is relatively difficult to detect their work. They aren't searched on entry to the facility and, as I recall an incident here in Durham last year, the prison guards were excused from having their cars "sniffed" on a Sunday visiting day.
Recently, a guard was "let go" because he was suspected of letting some guys on a road crew consort with their girlfriends. My, my. A roving prison vice squad rolled up to a park where the guys were eating lunch and here is what they found (I'm protecting my source): Bojangles boxes were strewn around (the "packouts" were still in the prison van-these are the bologna sandwiches provided by the prison to those working off site). There was cash lying on the ground that was apparently discarded when they saw the officers pull up (prisoners can't have money at any time for any reason). Two men were missing. The crew sent the prison van back to Guess Rd. One missing guy had a cell phone and arranged to be picked up on the way back by the guard. The other was picked up at the park later with a story that he had gotten permission to take a walk around a nearby field. The crew who found these problems declined to report the other missing person who was picked up by the van, so it appeared that only one was missing.
There's more to the story, but let's hold it to that. An "investigation" proceeds. It is conducted by Guess Rd prison staff. One guy who was an innocent bystander on the crew was offered an opportunity to go to a son's graduation service depending on how he answered the questions about what he knew. Realize also that, no matter what you say, it can be denied by the other party and if corroboration can't made, you can get in another form of trouble. The other members of the crew who were to be interviewed were kept in an adjacent room where they could overhear what the two talked about.
Dilemmas exist here: Squeal in this environment and you will suffer the consequences. Keep your mouth shut and you will be denied an expected privilege based on your continued good behavior. They don't really have to give a reason for denying something when they can make up a reason to deny you or simply not give a reason.
The bottom line: If you are present for wrongdoing by others, you will suffer one way or another no matter what you decide to do. The guard backed up the one inmate's story about being allowed to walk around the nearby field, preventing more serious punishment to the prisoner. The guard was fired but not prosecuted due to a "lack of evidence". You probably never read about this in the paper which is the way they prefer it.
Keep in mind that the potential punishment for these missing guys is severe. They would have been charged with "escape" and sentences extended. If they are caught with a cell phone, the punishment is also severe even though they may be doing nothing more than talking to girlfriends or family.
New laws have just been put in place to charge civilians who provide cigarettes or cell phones/components to inmates with a misdemeanor. Wonder why they don't do a better job of policing their own?
Let me suggest that it makes them look bad for the public to know just how much of the "misbehavior" of inmates is supported by the lure of greenbacks to folks who work within the system and who are then allowed to police themselves. Great system, isn't it?
Case in point: Prison guards I believe are a prime source of cell phones, drugs, contraband, etc for inmates since they can be paid for their services and it is relatively difficult to detect their work. They aren't searched on entry to the facility and, as I recall an incident here in Durham last year, the prison guards were excused from having their cars "sniffed" on a Sunday visiting day.
Recently, a guard was "let go" because he was suspected of letting some guys on a road crew consort with their girlfriends. My, my. A roving prison vice squad rolled up to a park where the guys were eating lunch and here is what they found (I'm protecting my source): Bojangles boxes were strewn around (the "packouts" were still in the prison van-these are the bologna sandwiches provided by the prison to those working off site). There was cash lying on the ground that was apparently discarded when they saw the officers pull up (prisoners can't have money at any time for any reason). Two men were missing. The crew sent the prison van back to Guess Rd. One missing guy had a cell phone and arranged to be picked up on the way back by the guard. The other was picked up at the park later with a story that he had gotten permission to take a walk around a nearby field. The crew who found these problems declined to report the other missing person who was picked up by the van, so it appeared that only one was missing.
There's more to the story, but let's hold it to that. An "investigation" proceeds. It is conducted by Guess Rd prison staff. One guy who was an innocent bystander on the crew was offered an opportunity to go to a son's graduation service depending on how he answered the questions about what he knew. Realize also that, no matter what you say, it can be denied by the other party and if corroboration can't made, you can get in another form of trouble. The other members of the crew who were to be interviewed were kept in an adjacent room where they could overhear what the two talked about.
Dilemmas exist here: Squeal in this environment and you will suffer the consequences. Keep your mouth shut and you will be denied an expected privilege based on your continued good behavior. They don't really have to give a reason for denying something when they can make up a reason to deny you or simply not give a reason.
The bottom line: If you are present for wrongdoing by others, you will suffer one way or another no matter what you decide to do. The guard backed up the one inmate's story about being allowed to walk around the nearby field, preventing more serious punishment to the prisoner. The guard was fired but not prosecuted due to a "lack of evidence". You probably never read about this in the paper which is the way they prefer it.
Keep in mind that the potential punishment for these missing guys is severe. They would have been charged with "escape" and sentences extended. If they are caught with a cell phone, the punishment is also severe even though they may be doing nothing more than talking to girlfriends or family.
New laws have just been put in place to charge civilians who provide cigarettes or cell phones/components to inmates with a misdemeanor. Wonder why they don't do a better job of policing their own?
Let me suggest that it makes them look bad for the public to know just how much of the "misbehavior" of inmates is supported by the lure of greenbacks to folks who work within the system and who are then allowed to police themselves. Great system, isn't it?
On Military Mental Breakdowns
The news media has been selective in its reporting of the incident at Ft Hood when an Army psychiatrist went on a killing spree. They've been reasonably fair at identifying him as an overly stressed soldier who flipped. They've also stressed the aspect of the military not separating him from service because of fear they'd look to be attacking a Muslim.
Well, maybe so, but here's an aspect of the story they've ignored: The military has been bending and rules in order to keep itself staffed up in this environment. They've offered thousands as incentives for guys to reenlist. There are signing bonuses for new enlist
Early in this Ft Hood story, the mother told of her son's efforts to get out of the Army. He admitted to being stressed and concerned about how Muslims attacking other Muslims would be a religous affront. His superiors had had serious concerns about hsi behavior. But, for the Army to allow dissatisfied soldiers to get out and avoid deployment, for example, to Afghanistan, would be a serious affront to their efforts to keep guys in the military. After all, if they let guys go simply because they didn't want to serve anymore, they may be left with too little cannon fodder.
The one exception to their policies seems to be the release of gays. The claim to be gay is a sure-fire exit strategy.
So, here we have two agreeing influences coming together: A man wants out and superiors would prefer him out, but I think an unannounced influence in this whole manner is the Army's policy of keeping itself staffed at all costs.
Well, maybe so, but here's an aspect of the story they've ignored: The military has been bending and rules in order to keep itself staffed up in this environment. They've offered thousands as incentives for guys to reenlist. There are signing bonuses for new enlist
Early in this Ft Hood story, the mother told of her son's efforts to get out of the Army. He admitted to being stressed and concerned about how Muslims attacking other Muslims would be a religous affront. His superiors had had serious concerns about hsi behavior. But, for the Army to allow dissatisfied soldiers to get out and avoid deployment, for example, to Afghanistan, would be a serious affront to their efforts to keep guys in the military. After all, if they let guys go simply because they didn't want to serve anymore, they may be left with too little cannon fodder.
The one exception to their policies seems to be the release of gays. The claim to be gay is a sure-fire exit strategy.
So, here we have two agreeing influences coming together: A man wants out and superiors would prefer him out, but I think an unannounced influence in this whole manner is the Army's policy of keeping itself staffed at all costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)