Even in supposedly soft prison systems like Norway's prisoners are denied access to the Internet because it is believed that they would use it to further their criminal or terrorist activities.
"Bruk av internett i fengsel
Innsatte i fengsler med høyt og lavere sikkerhetsnivå har i utgangspunktet ikke tilgang til internett.
Unntaket er innsatte som tar utdanning under soning. De kan få begrenset og kontrollert tilgang til internett i undervisningsøyemed."
Translated by Google because I'm too lazy to type it all:
"Use of the Internet in Prison
Inmates in prisons with a high and lower security level do not initially have access to the internet.
The exception is inmates who take education during their sentence. They can have limited and controlled access to the internet for educational purposes."
When I was much younger, I actually wanted to end up in a Norwegian prison for the free food and so that I did not have to risk unemployment/starvation after hearing about how great it was.
But no internet? Definitely motivation for me to work hard in life and not end up imprisoned.
I think there are two issues here: why aren't they allowed and why shouldn't they be allowed.
Some prisoners certainly shouldn't be allowed to access the internet. If you're in organized crime, being able to access the internet would give you an effective way of continuing your control from behind prison walls. Many prisoners might use the internet to continue attacks on people, albeit virtual. Does this apply to all prisoners? No. Should it apply to Hans Reiser? Maybe, I don't know enough to comment on that, his relationship with his kids, etc.
The US prison system is also often punitive beyond necessary which answers why they aren't allowed internet access in most circumstances. I think if you ask most Americans about prison, they'll say that people are raped and beaten in prison. Many Americans even seem to think those are appropriate accessory punishments to imprisonment. The news reported that Reiser was beaten in prison: https://web.archive.org/web/20090609172728/http://www.kcbs.c....
Should some prisoners be allowed more internet access? I'll leave that for others as my lunch is over.
- Incapacitation: prevents crime by removing a defendant from society.
- Rehabilitation: prevents crime by altering a defendant’s behavior.
- Retribution: prevents crime by giving victims or society a feeling of avengement.
- Restitution: prevents crime by punishing the defendant financially.
- Deterrence: Specific deterrence prevents crime by frightening an individual defendant with punishment. General deterrence prevents crime by frightening the public with the punishment of an individual defendant.
There's a difference between rehabilitation and giving people access to the internet when serving a sentence for killing your wife and tormenting her family for like, 2 years because you hid the body even though everyone knew you killed her. Also, why shouldn't it be a little bit of both?
I believe you'll find a lot of people here in the US that believe prison, at least for the worst crimes, isn't about punishment or rehabilitation, but "containment".
Because human beings feel it is appropriate and fair to punish people for wrongdoing, and without the state handling it individuals are more likely to take justice into their own hands. Making the criminal justice system sufficiently punishing is one of several checks against vigilantism.
It is some of both. Hans murdered his wife, tried to cover it up, and lied about it. His actions make him a danger to society, part of his incarceration relates to the danger he poses to society. While he is removed from society he should also be rehabilitated.
“Rehabilitation” means that a person is suffering from some condition, and they are not personally at fault for their crimes. While there is some partial truth in this point of view, taking it at 100% face value is unfair, to say the least. People can be actually guilty of something.
Googling for a bit it seems like it depends on the state [1] and not the federal level. But, email can be sent or received using CORRLINKS but you have to pay a fee for sending and receiving. [2]
Probably because you can use the reason of a gang leader orchestrating things from the inside to justify staffing to screen every email and then you charge inflated rates for that staffing.
Despite what everyone says, few things are ideological in the USA. Most things are a savvy entrepreneur locking in income from an unconventional method to draw from taxpayer money.
Medium to maximum-security facilities are probably less likely to allow/provide internet access to their prisoners. Partly due to security, and partly due to punitive measures.
Although in this case, Reiser seems to be at a minimum-medium class facility.
Even in supposedly soft prison systems like Norway's prisoners are denied access to the Internet because it is believed that they would use it to further their criminal or terrorist activities.
"Bruk av internett i fengsel
Innsatte i fengsler med høyt og lavere sikkerhetsnivå har i utgangspunktet ikke tilgang til internett.
Unntaket er innsatte som tar utdanning under soning. De kan få begrenset og kontrollert tilgang til internett i undervisningsøyemed."
Translated by Google because I'm too lazy to type it all:
"Use of the Internet in Prison
Inmates in prisons with a high and lower security level do not initially have access to the internet.
The exception is inmates who take education during their sentence. They can have limited and controlled access to the internet for educational purposes."
Edit: forgot to add the URL
https://www.kriminalomsorgen.no/bruk-av-internett-og-sosiale...
When I was much younger, I actually wanted to end up in a Norwegian prison for the free food and so that I did not have to risk unemployment/starvation after hearing about how great it was.
But no internet? Definitely motivation for me to work hard in life and not end up imprisoned.
I think there are two issues here: why aren't they allowed and why shouldn't they be allowed.
Some prisoners certainly shouldn't be allowed to access the internet. If you're in organized crime, being able to access the internet would give you an effective way of continuing your control from behind prison walls. Many prisoners might use the internet to continue attacks on people, albeit virtual. Does this apply to all prisoners? No. Should it apply to Hans Reiser? Maybe, I don't know enough to comment on that, his relationship with his kids, etc.
The US prison system is also often punitive beyond necessary which answers why they aren't allowed internet access in most circumstances. I think if you ask most Americans about prison, they'll say that people are raped and beaten in prison. Many Americans even seem to think those are appropriate accessory punishments to imprisonment. The news reported that Reiser was beaten in prison: https://web.archive.org/web/20090609172728/http://www.kcbs.c....
Should some prisoners be allowed more internet access? I'll leave that for others as my lunch is over.
Because not being able to freely communicate with the larger society is part of the punishment? I dunno, always seemed like an obvious thing.
Why should prisons be about punishment rather than rehabilitation?
You'll find lots of variations of the following:
The Purposes of Punishment:[^1]
- Incapacitation: prevents crime by removing a defendant from society.
- Rehabilitation: prevents crime by altering a defendant’s behavior.
- Retribution: prevents crime by giving victims or society a feeling of avengement.
- Restitution: prevents crime by punishing the defendant financially.
- Deterrence: Specific deterrence prevents crime by frightening an individual defendant with punishment. General deterrence prevents crime by frightening the public with the punishment of an individual defendant.
[^1]: https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purpose...
There's a difference between rehabilitation and giving people access to the internet when serving a sentence for killing your wife and tormenting her family for like, 2 years because you hid the body even though everyone knew you killed her. Also, why shouldn't it be a little bit of both?
3 replies →
They should be about rehabilitation.
That said, I think at least part of it is related to risk to the outside population.
i.e. Inmates performing illegal activity or otherwise directing people on the outside to do so.
Yes, You can do that with phones and visits as well, however those are a bit easier to monitor.
I believe you'll find a lot of people here in the US that believe prison, at least for the worst crimes, isn't about punishment or rehabilitation, but "containment".
Because human beings feel it is appropriate and fair to punish people for wrongdoing, and without the state handling it individuals are more likely to take justice into their own hands. Making the criminal justice system sufficiently punishing is one of several checks against vigilantism.
It is some of both. Hans murdered his wife, tried to cover it up, and lied about it. His actions make him a danger to society, part of his incarceration relates to the danger he poses to society. While he is removed from society he should also be rehabilitated.
It’s supposed to be both. There’s three components actually: punitive, deterrence and rehabilitation
1 reply →
“Rehabilitation” means that a person is suffering from some condition, and they are not personally at fault for their crimes. While there is some partial truth in this point of view, taking it at 100% face value is unfair, to say the least. People can be actually guilty of something.
8 replies →
Googling for a bit it seems like it depends on the state [1] and not the federal level. But, email can be sent or received using CORRLINKS but you have to pay a fee for sending and receiving. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_prisons
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_Fund_Limited_Inmate_Comp...
Probably because you can use the reason of a gang leader orchestrating things from the inside to justify staffing to screen every email and then you charge inflated rates for that staffing.
Despite what everyone says, few things are ideological in the USA. Most things are a savvy entrepreneur locking in income from an unconventional method to draw from taxpayer money.
Medium to maximum-security facilities are probably less likely to allow/provide internet access to their prisoners. Partly due to security, and partly due to punitive measures.
Although in this case, Reiser seems to be at a minimum-medium class facility.
Not "people", "some people". The more serious your crime, the less freedom you have during your incarceration.
here is a discussion related to this question that may provide some insights:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38454735