PRISON.THD --- Copyright 1988 by Phil Wheeler An original compilation of Compuserve Model 100 Forum messages for use by Forum members only. This set of messages relates to the curtailment of a prisoner's "right" to use a computer. Most fascinating is the difference between the original message reporting the incident, and another account with more data farther down the thread. There is a moral here, somewhere! Message range: 172017 to 172695 Dates: 7/24/88 to 8/10/88 Sb: Portable PC behind bars Fm: Edward Connors 72060,572 To: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 A prisoner's RadioShack 100 (with modem) was confiscated by the Mississippi Dept. of Corrections. He is charged with no crime related to the Radio Shack computer. Prison spokesman said, "We found that it would have been possible to access the prison computer with the Radio Shack, but itwould have been extremely unlikely," (quoted in PC/ Computing magazine, Aug'88, p. 67) Given those facts, it seems to me that if this policy spreads to other prisons, then prisoners on work-release (and citizens, coworkers, and friends of prisoners-if they own Radio Shack computers), may also face confiscation of computers by Mississippi justice officers in Mississippi! Handicapped prisoners need TDD or TTY access. Also, here in Maryland one of my co-workers recently has completed 1000 hrs of professional computer services for local gov't in lieu of imprisonment (he copped an "Alford" plea without admitting guilt). These benefits of owning a Radio Shack computer would be denied to prisoners and parolees, under Mississippi's policy. The prisoner's attempt to educate himself in a computer vocation was ended by the prison officials when they took his computer. Do you know how low wages are in those prisons? What alternative does he have? Should Tandy Corporation promote computer vocational education at prisons? Why or why not? Tandy's portables are being singled out as a threat for arbitrary confiscation in this Mississippi prison. Should Tandy act on this? Fm: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 To: Edward Connors 72060,572 Well, I think one could make the argument that prisoners are stripped of most of their civil rights, and while incarcerated, exist at the whim and pleasure of the administering officials. There are other brands of computers if the officials seem bent on keeping the Tandy portables out of their hands. It seems from your report that the principle bone of contention is the fact that the Tandy portables have a built-in modem. Which, by the way is completely non-functional unless one also has access to a telephone or telephone lines. I was not aware that prisoners are currently being given unlimited access to telephone service. It is also my understanding that prisoners on "work release programs" get out of the prison during certain hours to pursue the work part of the program. If their work is computer related, chances are most likely that they would not need to "bring work home with them" to do on their "home" computers, so what's the big deal? Many people who are involved with computers on a daily basis have no "home computer" to play around with. And the Tandy portables, in an of themselves, are not designed for anyone to pursue a Computer Science education.... they're too basic. And I seriously doubt that very many prisoners who need TDD devices have been successfully using the Tandy portables, which, without modifications, do not support that technology. And I also doubt that there would be an interest in suppressing Tandy portable ownership by parolees, who, ostensably have been released from prison, to lead a more socialized lifestyle, computer ownership included. Are they going to say that as a condition of parole, one cannot own a Tandy portable? I doubt it. Your suggestion that citizens, coworkers and friends might face confiscation is specious, given Federal due process laws. And I doubt that Tandy Corp has any interest in "acting on this" as a problem that merits their interest. Fm: Ran Talbott 70506,60 To: Edward Connors 72060,572 I read the article, and your summary is a bit incomplete. You neglected to mention that: 1. The prisoner in question is a convicted embezzler with computer experience. 2. The prison officials bent the rules to give him the opportunity to work in the prison office. 3. He then used an office PC to doctor money orders and forge letters on his behalf to the parole board. 4. The Mississippi prison system has an established policy forbidding prisoners to have modems. In other words, the guy lost his own computer only after he had continued his criminal career, _using a computer_, inside the prison walls. Not a case to inspire a lot of sympathy. There are many injustices perpetrated inside our prisons, but this sure doesn't sound like one of them. Fm: Mark Lutton 73106,1627 To: Ran Talbott 70506,60 This case of the embezzler who got his Model 100 taken away is beginning to look like the trial of the little kid who killed his parents. His lawyer pleaded, "Your Honor, can you not show leniency to my client? Remember, he is an orphan!" Fm: Ran Talbott 70506,60 To: Mark Lutton 73106,1627 Actually, Mark, the presentation of the case in the magazine article was quite different from its presentation here. Ordinarily, I'm a fairly strong advocate of civil and individual rights, (except when it comes to handguns, because of family members killed or harmed by them), and am willing to pounce on the tiniest infringement. Not this time, though. I think the prison officials acted fairly and properly by strictly enforcing the rule about modems only after the guy proved it was neccessary. Fm: Edward Connors 72060,572 To: Edward Connors 72060,572 [An earlier message asked what an "Alford Plea" is]. An Alford plea is made by defendant when the State's evidence of an offense is so persuasive that the cost to perform a trial may not be warranted. The defendant bargains for an opportunity to correct his offense or to perform community service. In the case I mentioned above, the defendant was charged with attempting to extort a kickback from an architect whom he would select to perform subcontract work under a State environmental remedy contract. The court said that since the defendant had already lost his job, his house, and his wife on account of the offense, the court would agree to the Alford plea. Now, it is not true that Mississippi can arbitrarily confiscate a prisoner's personal property which is essential to his legal defense, and it is darn stupid to confiscate it if it contributes to his morale or rehabilitation. In the case at Mississippi, the offense was that the prisoner played the commodities market using cotton baled by the prisoners, and drew funds from revenues earned. It is not a "computer" crime, it is an accountancy violation. The State shows no causal relation between his Model 100 and the loss of funds via IBM PC in their office. The fault seems to be lousy internal auditing of prison funds, to have let this go on for so long. Yes, there are ways recently proposed for the States to instigate confiscations of portable computers. The RICO act (federal law) can be invoked by the Atty General to pursue perpetrators across state lines, and all business equipment "used" in the crime, or intended for "use", can be confiscated. Then the accused has to go to court to try to win it back. Edwin Meese wanted to extend RICO into other kinds of offenses, using the least restrictive courts to broaden it. I take this case as one more example of that bad trend. Fm: Ran Talbott 70506,60 To: Edward Connors 72060,572 An "accountancy violation"?!? Sounds remarkably like Iran-Contra to me. The State doesn't, and shouldn't, need to show any "causal relationship": they gave the guy an exception to the rules against modems, and then withdrew that _privelege_. I don't know what it did for his morale, but it obviously did nothing to help rehabilitate him. Unless, of course, you'd like to contend that without it he would have, say, subdivided the prison and sold it in a vacation lot mail scam? The "fault" lies with the individual who decided to embezzle the money, not with the people who didn't catch him. I worry about RICO, "zero tolerance", anti-porn laws, and similar actions. They are clear evidence that both the government and the electorate are willing to chuck the Constitution whenever a difficult or complex social problem arises. It's embarrassing to see how many of our elected and appointed officials can't fathom the meaning of the simple phrase "Congress shall make no law..." Fm: Edward Connors 72060,572 To: Ran Talbott 70506,60 Well, Ran, I agree the prisoner is to blame for stealing the money, but my point is that with better accounting controls, a trivial loss might have been soon detected, and thus no privileges would be withdrawn. I should think that if the ROM in the Model 100 could have been crippled by burning in a few no-ops, the qhole question of the modem would be removed, since the modem would not work. A little epoxy cement in the modem port, maybe. A nice portable machine like the Model 100 shouldn't trigger an unconstitutional seizure, or search of a person's personal files. That is my point. I do not know what rules the Mississippi prisons had about modems, but after the Justice Dept issued a new textbook on "security in prisons" including a chapter about personal computers, we may expect to see a crackdown. Public beware. Visit a prison today, and maybe bring your laptop with you!! Ask to see the rules, too. Before they abridge the Freedom of Information Act... Fm: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 To: Edward Connors 72060,572 I think you're over-reacting, and trying to make an issue out of a non-issue. You seem to be confusing "privileges" granted to a prisoner, a convicted felon, who has been stripped of his civil rights, with "rights". There is no constitutional guarantee that I am aware of that guarantees prisoners the right to own or use computers. Period. Or anything else for that matter. It is therefore a privilege, extended by the state. And you seem to forget that whatever privileges are granted by the state, ANY state, can be withdrawn, with or without reason, since they are PRIVILEGES and not RIGHTS. A prisoner, a convicted felon, HAS NO RIGHTS beyond the right to breathe and follow orders. He has the right to a destroyed life, a record that will follow him all his life, and NO CIVIL RIGHTS, EVER!!! Unless re-granted by the state. A "trivial loss"? What is a trivial loss? Is that the same as saying if he shot someone in the foot, it's not as serious as shooting him in the head, and is therefore a "trivial" shooting? And why NOT withdraw privileges at the first sign of misuse, or breaw(Eof trust? Were they going to slap him on the wrist and say, "Naughty, naughty! You shouldn't do that!" I say throw the jerk in the hole, and leave him there for a month. Confiscate his computer like all his other personal property, and deny him further use of it until he is released. Your attempt to tie any of this with the Freedom of Information Act is specious. And for your information, that has already been abridged... The IRS is no longer subject to it, unless they chose to be, on a case by case basis. Fm: Ran Talbott 70506,60 To: Edward Connors 72060,572 While Tony's views on the treatment of prisoners are a little harsher than mine, I agree with him on the subject of "degree": the guy's a convicted embezzler, and it's just plain stupid, in the literal sense of the word, to overlook a repeat offense because it's "a trivial loss". We on the outside have the right to be protected from prisoners who might escape and do us harm, as do those on the inside who are trying to turn around and live within the law. Aside from that, jailers have no obligation to make it impossible for prisoners to commit crimes. Every time a prisoner breaks the rules, there should be some punishment, dictated by the offense and any mitigating circumstances. Even if it's as trivial as taking away dessert at a meal, something should be done to make it clear that prisoners have to toe the line. If they had tried to epoxy the modem port, I'm sure some lawyer somwhere would have filed suit over the permanent disfigurement of the M100.