Lentis/Technology and Incarceration in the United States

< Lentis

Introduction

In October 2013, the U.S. rate of incarceration was 716 per 100,000 people, which is the highest in the world.[1] Of the U.S. incarcerated, 37.7% of inmates are African American and 34% are Hispanic.[2] The 2014 census shows that African Americans represent 13.2% of the population and Hispanics represent 17.4%.[3] Many have attributed these disproportionate rates to the "War on Drugs" initiated by Richard Nixon in the 1980s.[4] This effort to criminalize drug use affected many poor African Americans, Hispanics, and women.[5] The number of women behind bars has drastically increased since the 1980s, increasing 400% for women of all races and 800% for African American women.[6]

A lower level of education is generally correlated with higher incarceration rates. Studies have shown that 68% of state prison inmates did not receive a high school diploma.[7] One aim of correctional education is to improve inmates' educational level. The rise of educational technologies, specifically tablets, can improve access to education in prisons. These tablets provide GED preparation courses, secondary education courses, and vocational training. They can also improve access to email and entertainment. There are considerable safety concerns associated with tablets. Current safety features include shatter-proof glass to prevent the tablets from being used as weapons, clear cases to ensure contraband cannot be hidden inside, and safety software. Despite the steps taken to address tablet safety and other concerns, some opponents believe prison is a punishment that should not include access to education at all.

History of Correctional Education

In the 1700s, correctional education in America focused on "moral education." Convicts' only textbook was the Bible, which taught spelling, grammar, history, geography, and religion.[8] This so-called Sabbath School was designed "so that the [convicts] may leave the Prison better prepared to be...useful citizens."[9] Most facilities required that prisoners receive reading lessons; teachers, chaplains, and community members rose to the challenge.[8] The subjects taught and books used, particularly in juvenile detention facilities, gradually expanded throughout the 1800s to match educational standards outside the prison system.[8]

The industrial revolution brought a demand for skilled labor and prisons responded with enhanced vocational programs.[10] By the 1970s, correctional education was viewed as integral to the prison experience and correctional education programs were able to support "a rich curriculum of vocational education, adult basic education, secondary education, post-secondary education, as well as numerous other self-help programs."[11] Correctional education evolved further to address the total needs of the prisoner.[12] Now, nearly all prisons offer a range of educational opportunities, from vocational apprenticeships to psycho-social programs (e.g., counseling, therapy) to pre- and post-release programs.[11]

Until 2009, the internet was not permitted for use in prisons. The Department of Justice limits inmates to monitored, secure email and educational technologies. Mobile correctional education technologies have increased in recent years. In 2013, 93% of states used desktop computers, 40% used mobile laptops, and 10% used tablets.[13] However, 62% of states allowed no student access to the internet; teachers and instructors were permitted to use it or students had only simulated access.[13] Technology is constantly evolving and adapting to the security needs of the prison system in order to deliver educational services to prisoners.

Purpose of Prison

The purpose of prison can be reduced to two opposing views: the more ideologically-conservative approach emphasizing deterrence and incapacitation and the more ideologically-liberal approach emphasizing reformation and rehabilitation.[14]

Deter and Incapacitate

Some believe that those who commit crimes or violate the social contract should be removed from society. This removal prevents society from being further harmed by the offender. Being isolated is detrimental to human health and the thought of being so removed from society may act as a deterrent to potential offenders. Researchers like Steven Shavell [15] have studied the optimal sanctions for deterrence and incapacitation. Those who believe prison should deter and incapacitate prisoners are unlikely to support technologies that provide prisoners with an education and access to the outside world.

Reform and Rehabilitate

Punishment can also be a chance for people to understand their mistakes and to correct the behavior in the future. In prisons, rehabilitation is generally done through education -- whether moral, technical, or basic. This can be combined with technology or not. Rehabilitation has shaped U.S. sentencing and correctional policies over the past century and there is currently an active debate over whether rehabilitation should be a constitutional right, as it is in a number of European nations.[16]

Proponents

Government Programs and Officials

The federal government has implemented educational grant programs to reduce recidivism rates and prison costs. The Second Chance Act of 2007 and Second Chance Pell Pilot Program provide grants to inmates for educational, vocational, and job replacement services to ease re-entry into society and to reduce crime.[17][18] Inmates who participate in correctional education programs have a 43% lower chance of recidivating and are 13% more likely to be employed than those who do not.[19] Although these programs do not specifically address educational tablet technology, Susan Bensinger, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Deputy Press Secretary, believes that, "isolating [inmates] from technology is not in line with the efforts to reduce recidivism. Many challenges are faced when they return, and using technology is one of the problems.”[20] Robert Green, an advocate for minimizing prison costs and director of the Maryland Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, states that the average teacher salary is $50,000-60,000 per year.[20] A JPay JP5mini tablet, which can be used by multiple prisoners, costs $70.[21] In many cases, inmates or their families pay for tablets, further reducing prison education costs.

Former Inmates, and Minority Rights and Advocacy Groups

Former inmates and minority groups have created educational programs that enable inmates to contribute positively to society after their release. Michael Santos and Glen Martin earned degrees in prison, while Vivian Nixon did not have the opportunity to pursue higher education. After release, Santos founded the Michael G. Santos Foundation which provides training and jobs to inmates.[22] Martin and Nixon founded the Education from the Inside Out (EIO) Coalition, an interest group that works to increase educational opportunities for current and former inmates through policy.[23][24] The Michael G. Santos Foundation and EIO Coalition support the use of educational technologies in prisons.[25][26] In 1972, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) created the Prison Outreach Program to provide educational, vocational, and counseling programs to inmates and address racial incarceration disparities.[27] Ben Jealous, former NAACP president, advocates for the use of educational tablets to reduce recidivism and improve conditions in prisons.[28]

Prison Technology Companies, Prison Officials, and Inmates' Families

For-profit companies that sell educational tablets for inmates believe that providing inmates with tablets will improve prison safety by keeping inmates occupied with course work, email, movies, and music. Tablets for inmates are sold by JPay, Telmate, American Prison Data Systems (APDS), Union Supply, Edovo, and Global Tel*Link (GTL). Tablets also allow for inmates' activities to be monitored. With tablets, inmates have access to more educational and vocational programs than conventional correctional programs. The companies posit that allowing inmates to independently operate tablets reduces the stress of prison and lessens inmates' aggression.[29] Prison officials have found significant decreases in "inmate-on-inmate" and "inmate-on-staff" assaults and a reduction in rule violations in facilities that offer Telmate tablets.[29] Doug Hughes, an administrator of Twin Falls County Jail in Idaho, said that the tablets incentivize inmates to behave and reduce the work of the prison staff.[20] Tablets also allow inmates to have more frequent contact with their family through email and video visits. Family support during and after incarceration reduces recidivism and increases inmates' chances of finding housing and employment after release.[30][31]

Opponents

Opponents of tablet technology for correctional education have concerns about prison and victim safety, exploitation of prisoners, and cost.

Correction Officers, Victim Assistance Organizations, and Prisoners' Rights Advocates

The Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association (PSCOA) is a union that works to promote and improve the corrections profession. In response to a recent push to introduce tablet technology to Pennsylvania prisons, the PSCOA has voiced safety concerns. Jason Bloom, vice president of the PSCOA, states that "we all know inmates can overcome security protocols" and that "potential risks don't justify the taxpayer expense."[32] The National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) is an advocacy group for victims of crimes. In their mission statement, they state that their organization is "championing dignity and compassion for those harmed by crime and crisis."[33] NOVA has publicly stated that they fear that introducing technology into prisons will result in “unrestricted and unsupervised outreach where inmates can revictimize or continue to intimidate victims.”[34] There are also prisoners' rights advocates that oppose the use of tablet technology in prisons, stating that "selling tablets to prisoners through the commissary, with no opportunity for competitive products or pricing, is just another way to financially exploit people who are incarcerated. Further, tablets add to the socioeconomic divide between prisoners who can afford the devices and those who cannot."[20]

Government Officials and Prison for Punishment Advocates

Various government officials have also spoken out against the use of tablet technology. When New York governor, Andrew Cuomo, implemented a plan to expand collegiate education in prisons, many politicians publicly stated their strong opposition to the plan. Assemblyman Marc Butler (R-Newport) started a petition stating that "'it is outrageous that the Governor has made free college degrees for convicts a priority. . . Free college tuition for prisoners is an insult to everyone that plays by the rules and has no relief in sight.'"[35] There are also various oppositional arguments based on the purpose of prison. As stated earlier, there are people who believe that prison should be for punishment, not for rehabilitation. Pennsylvania Representative Daryl Metcalfe echoes this idea, stating "people in prison are there to be punished, not rewarded with access to electronic devices" and that there are people who "can't afford a laptop or a computer or a tablet and [we] are going to give access to prisoners in their cells?"[20]

Who Participates in Correctional Education Programs?

Studies that evaluate the effectiveness of correctional education could be influenced by selection bias. Studies have shown that significant predictors of participation in correctional educational programs are age, race, prior education, sentence length, gender, and prior convictions.[36][37][38] Rose (2004) believes that women are less likely to enroll in education programs due to anxiety about the welfare and custody of their children.[39][40][41] Multiple studies have also found that inmates with visitation from their children, longer sentences, and greater education are more likely to enroll in educational programs.[37][38][39] A 2014 study showed that white prisoners are 25.6% more likely to enroll in post-secondary education than their black counterparts.[37] Knepper (1989) found that those most likely to participate were white, male, and slightly older with no prior convictions.[36]

Conclusions

The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Traditional correctional education has been found to reduce recidivism and increase employment of inmates after release.[19] Tablets provide educational, vocational, entertainment, and communication services that may further increase employment and further reduce recidivism, inmate violence, and prison costs. If tablets for correctional education are to be adopted, opposition to them must be understood and addressed. Differing opinions about the role of prison could prevent tablet technology from being used.

In the future, researchers should study the effect of tablet technology on security, recidivism, education, prison safety, and employment. The development of less expensive phone services, such as Pigeonly, for inmates and their impact on recidivism and enrollment in correctional education should also be evaluated.[42]

References

  1. ↑ Walmsley, R. (2013). World prison population list. International Centre for Prison Studies. http://www.bjs.gov
  2. ↑ Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2015). Inmate Race. https://www.bop.gov.
  3. ↑ United States Census Bureau. (2014). Quick facts. http://www.census.gov
  4. ↑ Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York, NY: The New Press.
  5. ↑ Golden, R. (2005). War on the family: Mothers in prison and the families they leave behind. The Journal of Sociology & Welfare, 33(3), 260-262.
  6. ↑ Mauer, M., Potler, C., & Wolf, R. (1997). Gender and justice: Women, drugs, and sentencing policy. The Sentencing Project.
  7. ↑ Harlow, C. W. (2003). Education and correctional populations. Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov
  8. 1 2 3 Gehring, T. (1995). Characteristics of Correctional Instruction, 1789-1875. Journal of Correctional Education, 46(2), 52-59.
  9. ↑ Boston Prison Discipline Society. (1972). Reports of the Prison Discipline Society of Boston, 1826-1854. Vol. 1. Montclair, NJ: Pattern Smith.
  10. ↑ Eggleston, C., & Gehring, T. (1986). Correctional education paradigms in the United States and Canada. Journal of Correctional Education, 37, 86-92.
  11. 1 2 Messemer, J. E. (2011). The historical practice of correctional education in the United States: A review of the literature. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(17), 91-100.
  12. ↑ Hobler, B. (1999). Correctional education: Now and in the future. Journal of Correctional Education, 50, 102-105.
  13. 1 2 Tolbert, M., Hudson, J., & Claussen Erwin, H. (2015). Educational technology in corrections 2015. U.S. Department of Education. http://www2.ed.gov/
  14. ↑ Pollock, J. M. (2005). Philosophy and History of Prisons. In A. G. Blackburn, S. K. Fowler, & J. M. Pollock (Eds.), Prisons Today and Tomorrow. Jones and Bartlett Learning.
  15. ↑ Shavell, S. (2015). A simple model of optimal deterrence and incapacitation. International Review of Law and Economics, 42, 13-19.
  16. ↑ Rotman, E. (1986). Do criminal offenders have a constitutional right to rehabilitation? Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 77(4), 1023-1068.
  17. ↑ Second Chance Act of 2007, 110 U.S.C. (2007). https://www.govtrack.us
  18. ↑ U.S. Department of Education. (2015). U.S. Department of Education launches second chance pell pilot program for incarcerated individuals. http://www.ed.gov/
  19. 1 2 Davis, L. M., Bozick, R., Steele, J. L., Saunders, J., & Miles, J. N. V. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional education. RAND Corporation. http://www.rand.org/
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 Gilna, D. (2015). Companies pitch tablets for prisoners to maintain family ties, aid in reentry...and generate profit. Prison Legal News. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org
  21. ↑ Stelle, D. (2015). JPay release JP5mini specialist prison-friendly tablet. Android Headlines. http://www.androidheadlines.com
  22. ↑ Michael G. Santos Foundation. (2015). http://michaelsantos.org
  23. ↑ Rhodan, M. (2015). Former prisoners applaud program to help inmates go to college. Time. http://time.com
  24. ↑ The Education from the Inside Out. (2015). http://www.eiocoalition.org
  25. ↑ Santos, M. G. (2015). 189 last mile cofounder Chris Redlitz. https://michaelsantos.com
  26. ↑ EIO. (2015). Education from the Inside Out Coalition. Department of Education offers new grants to education and reentry services. http://www.wordpress.eiocoalition.org/
  27. ↑ NAACP. (2015). National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. http://www.naacp-treasurevalley.org
  28. ↑ Jealous, B. (2015). Justice tech: Making jails and prisons work. Scoop. http://www.scoop.co.nz/
  29. 1 2 Telmate. (2015). Telmate tablets - improving facility safety and inmate behavior. http://www.telmate.com/
  30. ↑ Holt, N., & Miller, D. (1972). Explorations in inmate-family relationships. National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
  31. ↑ Shanahan, R., & Agudelo, S. V. (2012). The family and recidivism. American Jails.
  32. ↑ Storm, R. (2014). PA inmates soon to be allowed a version of electronic tablets. PSCOA News. http://www.pscoa.org
  33. ↑ NOVA. (2015). National Organization for Victim Assistance. http://www.trynova.org
  34. ↑ Railey, K. (2013). Some prisons let inmates connect with tablets. http://www.usatoday.com
  35. ↑ Zoukis, C. (2014). Opposition to New York's college-in-prison plan grows despite mountain of supportive research. http://www.prisoneducation.com
  36. 1 2 Knepper, P. (1989). Selective participation, effectiveness, and prison college programs. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services, and Rehabilitation, 14(2), 109-135.
  37. 1 2 3 Rose, K., & Rose, C. (2014) Enrolling in college while in prison: Factors that promote male and female prisoners to participate. Journal of Correctional Education, 65(2), 20-39.
  38. 1 2 Stephan, J. J., & Karberg, J. C. (2003). Census of state and federal correctional facilities, 2000. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S Department of Justice.
  39. 1 2 Rose, C. (2004). Women's participation in prison education: What we know and what we don't know. Journal of Correctional Education, 55(1), 78-100.
  40. ↑ Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  41. ↑ Pollock-Byrne, J. M. (1990). Women, prison, and crime. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
  42. ↑ Pigeonly. (2015). https://pigeon.ly/
This article is issued from Wikibooks. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.