Aisto® is a new, patented, blockchain enabled service from meshIP®. More than just the underlying technology for Bitcoin or other crypto tokens used to facilitate transactions, the blockchain has many practical uses, including within the corrections industry.

A blockchain definition: A blockchain is a database that is distributed among multiple computing devices. A blockchain is formed from blocks, with each block having information related to a transaction and linking the block to a prior block in the chain. The computing devices can each have respective copies of the blockchain, so that no centralized or official copy of the blockchain exists and no computing device is trusted more than any other computing device. When a user initiates a transaction, some or all of the computing devices can verify the transaction. After verifying the transaction, the computing devices can include information related to the transaction into the respective copies of the blockchain. This can be more robust and secure than many other approaches. At a high level, blockchain technology allows a network of computers to agree at regular intervals on the true state of a distributed ledger. The ledger is distributed across many participants in the network — it doesn’t exist in one place. Instead, copies exist and are simultaneously updated with every fully participating node in the ecosystem. A block could represent transactions and data of many types.

To learn more about Aisto, visit https://www.prisoncellphones.com/aisto/

To read about how our blockchain wireless patents enable and protect Aisto®, visit here, here, here and here.

The post Blockchain In Prison appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

We post this summary of Global Tel*Link’s upcoming presentation “Mobility In Corrections” at the Corrections Technology Association (CTA) 2013 Annual Technology Summit, without comment…

It is a question of when, not if, are secure mobile phones and/or tablets are used by inmates in a correctional setting. There are natural applications for the use of secure mobile phones include; telephone calls, video calls, music and email using the embedded capabilities of today’s mobile phones. Additional applications could include secure text messaging. What if tablets were introduced to inmates? The potential for positive use is greatly enhanced when considering education and training curriculum is downloaded to the tablet. Administrative functionality such as commissary ordering or kites is also within the realm of possibilities.

Clearly, technology is available to integrate all of these applications and more on today’s mobile phones and tablets. The larger question, though, is what are the security and policy implications from introducing mobility in corrections? Could the phones be used as weapons, trade and/or commerce? Are all inmates eligible to use a mobile phone or just select inmates? Are inmates required to purchase a mobile phone or tablet or are they provided at no cost to the inmate? What are the infrastructure requirements for supporting mobile phones such as power outlets for recharging? What types of batteries are required so as not to thwart drug sniffing dogs? Are there additional revenue generating opportunities for correctional facilities such as a limited selection of downloadable movies the inmates may rent? How do these offerings co-exist in an environment where contraband cell phones are not permitted?

A workshop to openly discuss the questions above and many more is the purpose of this overview and discussion. Technology, however, cannot function alone without well thought out policy and guidelines. The potential exists to enable the simultaneous missions of incarceration, rehabilitation and reduced recidivism while ensuring the safety of staff, the inmates and the outside world. Through a successful partnership between corrections and the private sector, these challenges can be achieved.

Source (Page 20)

(For more information on this strategy, see our whitepaper “Reducing the Demand for Contraband Cell Phones in Correctional Facilities” which can be accessed by clicking on the download link to the right.)

The post Mobility In Corrections appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

An interesting article about the use of video visitation in prison. We recently discussed the search for new sources of revenue by prison administrators and the positive impact of visitation on prisoner recidivism. This article highlights the use of technology to accomplish both goals.

As stated in the article, “The company’s revenue-sharing model provides some incentives to corrections agencies. But the real savings are in staffing. Everyone has had to rein in costs. It’s cheaper to put in an Internet system to cut down on inmate movement than to have people come on-site.” Allowing prisoners to make calls, whether voice or video, from their cells will raise revenue, increase safety and reduce cost.

Lydia Curtis walked into the visiting room with a handful of other women Wednesday at the Cape May County Jail, where a sheriff’s officer ran a metal-detecting wand over them.

Curtis, 37, of Lower Township, was there to visit her husband, Ben Curtis, who is awaiting extradition to Pennsylvania on a warrant for failing to complete community service in Bucks County, she said.

“We just talk about normal, daily stuff. He wants to know about the kids. They play sports,” she said of the couple’s four children.

These in-person visits have become less common since Cape May County introduced Internet visitation last April.

The system works like Skype. Inmates or their families pay a fee to chat over the Internet through a video screen. Families can access the system over the web.

County officials are convinced this kind of service could raise millions of dollars in new revenue for the state Department of Corrections.

More jails in New Jersey are considering adopting this kind of service. And one provider, iWebVisit.com of Reno, Nev., recently met with New Jersey officials about using the system at the state’s prisons.

Cape May County freeholders in January 2011 paid iWebVisit.com $67,145 to install 27 video-chat terminals at the jail off Crest Haven Boulevard in Middle Township. Inmate processing fees paid for $17,000 of those costs.

The county receives 46 percent of revenue from the video chats between inmates and their friends, family or even lawyers. The company charges $10 for a 20-minute video chat; $15 for a chat with a lawyer.

While the system has not replaced in-person visits, it has become a popular alternative for inmates and their families, Sheriff Gary Schaffer said.

“Over the summer, about two-thirds of our visits were over the Internet,” he said. “The results are better than I expected and they’ll only get better. We’ve had a couple law firms sign up already. Attorneys are starting to use it more.”

Cape May County collected about $8,000 in revenue since the system went live in May. These earnings are expected to increase to $20,000 in 2012, Administrator Stephen O’Connor said.

The company recently met with the state Department of Corrections about adopting the system at New Jersey’s nine state prisons.

“A presentation has been made, but they haven’t decided which way they can go,” Corrections spokesman Matt Schuman said. Corrections Commissioner Gary Lanigan would make the final decision, Schuman said.

New Jersey houses about 24,200 inmates, according to the department. That’s about 100 times the average occupancy of the Cape May County jail.

Under the terms of the county’s deal, the state might expect to raise at least $2 million in new revenue per year — more, if the participation rate were higher.

“If the state does go with this kind of thing, they can make millions of dollars per year,” Schaffer said. “Take the number of inmates in the system. Some of our inmates have three visits per day, while before they were lucky to get one visit per week.”

Salem County signed a similar agreement in November. Because Cape May County was the first in New Jersey to try the system, the company offered Cape May County a more favorable revenue-sharing deal.

“They came in by offering us 15 percent,” Salem County Jail Warden Raymond C. Skradzinski said. “We coaxed them up to 25 percent.”

Salem County, which, unlike Cape May County, houses federal inmates awaiting trial from Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, expects to see $10,000 to $20,000 in its first full year, Skradzinski said.

The Nevada company was one of four that bid on the Cape May County proposal. The company provides Internet visitation at jails in six states, spokesman Robert Avery said.

“We’re talking to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security right now. They run all the ICE jails,” he said of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“ICE inmates are typically housed extremely far from their families,” he said. “I’ve been told the ICE inmates are practically wearing out our system. It’s very popular with them.”

Avery said the company’s revenue-sharing model provides some incentives to corrections agencies. But the real savings are in staffing, he said.

“Everyone has had to rein in costs. It’s cheaper to put in an Internet system to cut down on inmate movement than to have people come on-site,” he said.

Schaffer agreed he expects to be able to cut down on overtime for scheduled visitation as more inmates start using the Internet version.

Lower Township’s Curtis says she has tried the Internet visitation from her home, but prefers to save money by coming to the jail when she can.

“It’s a little impersonal,” she said. “State prisons allow contact visits. Prisoners are not going to want to give that up.”

Reached for comment, the New Jersey branch of the American Civil Liberties Union declined to comment when told the Internet visits were optional.

Salem County’s Skradzinski said prison inmates likely would use the Internet visitation system much more than typical jail inmates. Prisoners serve longer sentences than most jail inmates, which are typically limited to 1 year. And state prisons often impose greater geographic distances between inmates and their families.

Skradzinski recommends the state consider this kind of visitation system.

“It would be the smart thing to do. I definitely see it being the wave of the future,” he said.

Source

The post Prison Virtual Visits Bring In Real Cash appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Yet another instance of a prisoner using a contraband cell phone with internet access to post on Facebook. The meshDETECT secure prison cell phones do not allow internet access.

The sister of a murder victim is calling for Indiana prison officials to remove a Facebook profile for an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility in Carlisle.

Quintez Deloney, 20, of New Albany, is serving a 38-year sentence for a burglary that led to the death of 26-year-old Lewis James of Charlestown. James’ sister, Lisa Cunningham, said she learned Saturday that Deloney has a Facebook page on which he appears to be posting from prison.

“It feels like five years ago all over again. It’s like everything just happened again,” Cunningham said. “[Deloney] shouldn’t have any freedom. Once you’re in prison, you lose all your rights.”

In January 2007, James was shot seven times — four times in the back — at an apartment on William O. Vance Court in New Albany where he went to buy drugs. Floyd County prosecutors alleged Deloney and Lance Douglas, 24, kicked down the door to the apartment and attempted to rob James. When James resisted, he was shot.

Although prosecutors argued Deloney was the shooter, the jury convicted Douglas of murder but found Deloney guilty of only robbery and burglary. Deloney was sentenced in May 2009 to 80 years in prison, but that was reduced after the Indiana Court of Appeals found he should not have been sentenced for both the robbery and burglary charges because of the double jeopardy provision.

Deloney, through his attorney Bruce Brightwell, has filed a motion to correct error with the court seeking to have his conviction overturned or sentence reduced. That matter is set for hearing March 9.

Deloney has been serving his time at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility since he was sentenced. A Facebook profile for “Quintez Q-Ball Deloney” has 184 friends. The first update on the page was July 17, 2011.

A post on the page includes Deloney’s prison mailing address. There are several posts about the case. On Oct. 11, he wrote that he was starting another appeal. On Oct. 15, he wrote, “beat anther case i feel like gotti did … BRR!”

In another message, he indicated he would be released in 2014 even though the Indiana Department of Correction lists his earliest possible release date as 2026. Most of the posts contain profanity and are not fit for publication in the News and Tribune.

At one point, someone asked how he had Facebook access in prison. He responded, “thats somethang thats kept secret!”

Susan Harrington, spokeswoman for Wabash Valley, said Cunningham’s complaint has been filed with internal affairs investigators. Harrington said Deloney will be disciplined if it is true that he has somehow been posting messages from prison.

Wabash Valley does not allow inmates to have cell phones, and Harrington said they have no Internet access through legal means inside the prison. Most of Deloney’s posts indicate they were made using a mobile device.

“Usually, if we find them with any kind of cell phone or communication device, it’s confiscated and we go through disciplinary procedures,” Harrington said.

Cunningham said she contacted Wabash Valley and Congressman Todd Young, R-Ind., asking for help to remove Deloney’s Facebook profile. Cunningham said she is speaking out because she does not want family members of other murder victims to have to see pictures of their loved ones’ killers or accomplices on Facebook.

Other states have also had to deal with inmates using Facebook. The California Department of Corrections announced in August that it had started reporting inmate pages to Facebook and that the company had agreed to delete pages that had been updated since the inmate was incarcerated. Facebook has a policy against anyone using a fake name or updating a profile for another person.

That move came after a convicted child molester accessed Facebook photos of his victim and sent current drawings of her to her home even though he had not seen her in seven years.

More than 1,760 contraband cell phones were confiscated from Indiana state prisons in 2010, according to Department of Correction records.

Source

The post Facebook Profile For Prisoner Under Investigation appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Recent statistics show that, on average, a day in state prison costs nearly $80

Cash-strapped states have increasingly turned to user fees to fund their criminal justice systems, as well as to provide general budgetary support. States now charge defendants for everything from probation supervision, to jail stays, to the use of a constitutionally-required public defender. Every stage of the criminal justice process, it seems, has become ripe for a surcharge.

These “user fees” differ from other kinds of court-imposed financial obligations. Unlike fines, whose purpose is to punish, and restitution, whose purpose is to compensate victims, user fees are explicitly intended to raise revenue. Sometimes deployed as an eleventh hour maneuver to close a state budget gap, the decision to raise or create new user fees is rarely made with much deliberation or thought about the consequences. (source)

How did these fees come to be such an important part of funding prison operations?

History of Inmate Fees

In 1982, Michigan passes the first law in the nation, allowing inmates to be charged a medical co-payment.

By 1997, 41 states had been authorized to collect inmate fees in four major categories:
1. Medical services,
2. Per diem,
3. Non-program functions, and
4. Program participation.

By 2004, according to an article by Institute for Southern Studies, approximately one-third of county jails and more than 50% of state correctional systems had instituted “pay-to-stay” fees, charging inmates for their own incarceration.

What are facilities currently charging for?
1. Medical services;
2. Per diem – includes “pay-to-stay,” food, and basic programs;
3. Other non-program functions – includes services such as telephone usage, haircuts, release/parole escort, and drug testing; and
4. Program participation – includes work release, electronic monitoring, substance abuse treatment, and medical costs. (source)

In more detail, these fees can include:

Booking
Release escort
Drug testing
Telephones
Haircuts
Bonding
Clothing
Commissary (general)
Commissary (debit card transaction fee)
Detoxification
Laundry
Meals
Notary service
Property damage
Recreational clothing/gear
Sheriff’s fee, criminal court clerk
Transportation
Vending machines
Work release (room and board)
Weekender programs
Medical Co-pays

New Revenue Sources

As state budgets continue to contract, prison systems across the country are getting more creative in their fee sources. For example, inmate visits in Arizona now require a $25 fee. New legislation allows the department to impose a $25 fee on adults who wish to visit inmates at any of the 15 prison complexes that house state prisoners. The one-time “background check fee” for visitors is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation.

The New Hampshire Department of Corrections has gone into business with a St. Louis-based company to provide inmates with access to email and downloadable music. It sells see-through MP3 players and other devices to the inmates directly for as much as $130 — 10 percent of which goes into the NHDOC’s recreation fund to pay for other inmate activities.

And in Ohio, criminals sentenced to the Franklin County jail will be charged $40 for the pleasure, starting next year.

Sheriff Zach Scott proposed the fee after commissioners asked him to find ways to generate revenue. The one-time charge will apply to criminals sentenced to either the medium- or maximum-security jail.

“We need the money,” said Scott, who has been fighting with the county over his 2012 budget.

Dave Masterson, Scott’s finance director, predicted that the fee will generate between $106,000 and $200,000 annually for Scott’s operating budget. Chief Deputy Mark Barrett said the $40 fee is based on the cost of labor to book a prisoner into the jail.

In Wichita, KS, the City Council has given initial approval to charge a housing fee for municipal offenders.

Right now the city pays millions to the county to house the inmates, and city officials say the tab is getting too big. Since 2008, the county has charged the city $2.09 per hour to house municipal offenders. That amounts to millions of dollars the city pays each year.

To cut back on that bill, the city wants to shift the cost to convicted offenders. The city is proposing is a $2 per hour fee attached with a ten dollar booking fee.

The Impact Of Mandatory Fees

For prisons, detainees and their families, the impact of mandatory fees can be significant. Fees and other criminal justice debt are typically levied on a population uniquely unable to make payments. Criminal defendants are overwhelmingly poor. It is estimated that 80-90 percent of those charged with criminal offenses qualify for indigent defense. Nearly 65 percent of those incarcerated in the U.S. did not receive a high school diploma; 70 percent of prisoners function at the lowest literacy levels. African-Americans face a particularly severe burden: Nationally, African-Americans comprise 13 percent of the population but 28 percent of those arrested and 40 percent of those incarcerated, and African-Americans are almost five times more likely than white defendants to rely on indigent defense counsel.

Individuals emerging from prison often face significant challenges meeting basic needs. Many are unable to find stable housing – it is estimated that 15 to 27 percent of prisoners expect to go to homeless shelters upon their release. Many used drugs or alcohol regularly before going to prison and may need treatment upon release.

Employment rates for those coming out of prison are also notoriously low – up to 60 percent of former inmates are unemployed one year after release. Obstacles to finding a job are even greater now, as the unemployment rate in the general population hovers at just under 10 percent, and is as high as 16 percent for industries such as construction that have traditionally been sources of jobs for persons with criminal convictions.

Against this backdrop, criminal justice debt adds yet one more barrier to getting on one’s feet. What at first glance appears to be easy money for the state can carry significant hidden costs – both human and financial – for individuals, for the government, and for the community at large. When persons with convictions are unable to pay their debts, they face a cascade of consequences. Late fees, interest, and other “poverty penalties” accrue. In many states, driver’s licenses are suspended for missed payments, thereby stripping individuals of a legal means of traveling to work. Damaged credit can make it difficult to find employment or housing.

Worse yet, in many ways, when states impose debt that cannot be paid they are charting a path back to prison. Debt-related mandatory court appearances and probation and parole conditions leave debtors vulnerable for violations that result in a new form of debtors’ prison. Suspended driver’s licenses lead to criminal sanctions if debtors continue to drive. Aggressive collection tactics can disrupt employment, make it difficult to meet other obligations such as child support, and lead to financial insecurity – all of which can lead to recidivism. (source)

A Fairer Alternative?

One alternative is to offer “optional” services such as the email service and mp3 players mentioned above. Only those who can afford the service will purchase. However, the revenue to the prison can be significant and reoccurring given the ongoing nature of these service offerings. The meshDETECT secure prison cell phone solution is another such optional service that can offered to raise revenue. In addition to reducing the value of contraband cell phones in prison, commission earnings can be an alternative to the burden of imposed fees on those least likely to be able to pay.

The post Prisons Seeking New Sources Of Revenue appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

An article about a prison in Australia highlighting the problem of contraband technology being smuggled into prisons. It is not just contraband prison cell phones which are a problem in this particular facility.

Prisoners in one of Victoria’s most secure jails have been using webcams and wireless internet devices to enjoy freedom on the outside world.

The Herald Sun can reveal two cameras, a wireless USB internet stick and several USBs containing data were found at Barwon Prison.

Police are investigating and several inmates may be charged.

It is the latest in a series of breaches at the maximum-security prison, the most serious being the murder of gangland killer Carl Williams last year.

Correction Victoria’s Security and Emergency Services Group officers seized computers in last month’s search.

The contraband was found in the prison’s Eucalypt unit, which houses murderers such as police killer Jason Roberts.

The Herald Sun has reported Roberts had been taunting his victims online by professing his innocence, and calling on pen pals to write to him.

A Corrections Victoria spokesman said at the time it was believed the websites were being maintained by someone outside jail.

Victorian prisoners are not allowed internet access.

“Prisoners across the Victorian prison system have access to computers in specified and controlled circumstances, which never includes internet access. Computers are subject to regular searches and audits,” the spokesman said.

“Any prisoner found to have used their computer inappropriately will not get it back.

“Corrections Victoria is constantly reviewing its computer policy in light of technological developments such as internet-enabled USB devices.”

The spokesman said security officers made 90,000 searches of prisoners and visitors in the past year.

But resourceful criminals were still been able to smuggle compact computer equipment into jail.

Killer Hugo Rich was found with a stash of cyber porn when his cell was searched late last year.

Loddon Prison in central Victoria was nicknamed Crazy Johns after thee mobile phones and other accessories were seized in March last year.

Two killers were linked to that discovery.

Opposition corrections spokeswoman Jill Hennessy said the State Government had not invested enough in security or guards.

The post Inmates Surfing Web From Prison appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Another article about the corrupting influence of contraband such as cell phones on guards in prison. Interestingly, this guard, “charged $200 to get drugs into the jail, $200 for a carton of cigarettes and $250 for a cell phone.” Is the ability to communicate with loved ones while in jail more valuable to prisoners than drugs or cigarettes?

On Monday a former District of Columbia Department of Corrections officer pleaded guilty to charges of accepting bribes in exchange for smuggling contraband into the jail for inmates.

Twenty-three year old Ryan Motley could receive as much as twelve years in prison for his role in bringing in cell phones and marijuana. Residents of the D.C. Jail, located on the southeast side of Capitol Hill, are not allowed to have cell phones in their possession, and marijuana is also illegal. Local prosecutors said he admitted to bringing in at least 10 cell phones and an undisclosed amount of marijuana into the jail. In return, Motley received an estimated $1,800.

Motley was stopped in November 2010, as he was entering the jail through a staff entrance. His operations began to unravel when a co-worker questioned him after discovering two cell phones in his protective vest.

A female returning citizen, Laura Norris, said, “When I was in the D.C. years ago, it didn’t feel any different than being out on the streets. Some of the people locked up had everything.” Norris said she recalled seeing cigarettes, marijuana, and other illegal items during her time there ten years ago. “I never did federal time, but I was sentenced to the D.C. Jail time.”

Smuggling items into the detention center has long been a problem. A guard, who wish to be unidentified, said, “We have a big problem with people bringing stuff into the jail. People are always looking for a way to make extra money. The biggest scheme I can think of in my career here was with Marshall and Adams, back in ‘07”

The guard is referring to D.C. corrections officers Dana Marshall, 52, and Sheri Adams, 30, who were arrested as part of a scheme that involved multiple jail officials and as many as thirty inmates. An unnamed inmate and undercover agent alleged that food, drugs, electronic devices (iPods and MP3 players), cell phones, and weapons have been illegally brought in by these two women. They were charged with bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery.

The unidentified guard said that Marshall, who was stationed in the culinary department, where he could in a special diet tray and have an inmate assigned to the kitchen detail deliver the tray to another inmate. Adams acted as the “middle man,” authorities said. She met with the inmate’s contact outside the D.C. Jail to take the orders and money.

Adams charged $200 to get drugs into the jail, $200 for a carton of cigarettes and $250 for a cell phone. She brought the contraband to Marshall, who would smuggle in the goods.

A Washingtonian who was incarcerated at the jail for six months said, “I was there for half a year and saw a lot of stuff. I saw people listening to their iPods and even people talking on cell phones in their cells. All of these cats [guards] are doing it. The act isn’t going to end any time soon.”

David Carson, a DC resident who lives in the Potomac Gardens neighborhood, remarked, “It disturbs me that just blocks away this kind of stuff is going on. I thought the job or a corrections officer is to keep inmates safe while they are going through the court process. It only goes to show that correctional officers aren’t any different than the people they are sworn to oversee. To some that wear the badge, it doesn’t mean anything.”

Source

The post Former Correctional Officer Stirs Up Ethical Questions At DC Jail appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

An article discussing a New Zealand prison’s plans to install landlines in each prisoner’s cell, similar to what has been done in two British prisons. The reason it is being considered is because, according to the article, “Evidence shows that prisoners are less likely to re-offend if they keep in touch with their families and have good family support when they are released.” Wouldn’t a secure prison cell phone service like meshDETECT be a simpler and more cost effective way to give the prisoners access to telephone services in their cells?

Corrections Minister Judith Collins says she would have concerns about prisoners talking to their criminal mates if there were landline phones in prison cells.

Landlines are installed in the cells of two private prisons in Britain operated by British company Serco, which will run the controversial new Mt Eden Corrections Facility in Auckland from August 1.

The Mt Eden facility has phones in communal areas, but there are currently no plans for them to be installed in cells.

Ms Collins today said she would have a few issues with phones in every cell.

”The first would be that they obviously wouldn’t want to be having prisoners talking to criminal mates every night. That wouldn’t be acceptable and quite clearly any phone calls on landlines would have to monitored, and scrupulously so, as they are now.

”I’d want to also be reassured that this would assist rehabilitations.”

Ms Collins said prisoners already had access to landline phones, as required by the UN treaties New Zealand has signed.

Asked if she would say no to phones in prison cells, Ms Collins said she would want any phone lines to be scrupulously monitored.

”Public safety has to come first … I’d expect to see some very compelling evidence that it assisted rehabilitations before I’d even think about it,” she said.

Serco spokesman Paul Shaw said the communal phones at Mt Eden prison could be accessed throughout the hours prisoners were unlocked – when they were not in their cells, or in work or training. Prisoners paid for calls by purchasing phonecards.

”The phones use a system which allows prisoners to ring certain pre-approved numbers, and calls can be monitored for security purposes,” he said.

Serco believed it was important for prisoners to maintain contact with their families, he said.

”Evidence shows that prisoners are less likely to re-offend if they keep in touch with their families and have good family support when they are released.”

Having landlines in communal areas was consistent with other New Zealand prisons and the majority of prisons Serco operated across the world, including two in Australia.

The Mt Eden prison is the first since 2005 to be managed by a private sector contractor.

Opposition parties have consistently condemned the move and concerns have been raised about problems at overseas prisons run by Serco.

International reports have linked some Serco prisons with violence, overcrowding and poor health care.

Source

The post Fears Over Prisoners’ Phone Access appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

The following editorial is a response to one written earlier regarding contraband prison cell phone signal jamming. In it the author, an official of the Maryland DOC states, “Corrections systems must invest, innovate, develop partnerships and educate themselves in order to gain the necessary capabilities to fight this problem.” This is very true, but all the approaches he mentions are related to smuggled cell phone interdiction and detection. None of the solutions contemplate proactively reducing the contraband value of smuggled cell phones by offering prisoners a secure cell phone solution in order to siphon off legitimate usage (prisoners who simply want to stay in touch with friends and family) and thereby reduce the contraband value of smuggled wireless phones. It is time for DOC officials to consider addressing the root cause of the problem (demand) in a addition to spending money on detection and interdiction.

Terry Bittner’s assertion that cell phones in Maryland’s prisons are an issue is correct. This is an issue in every state. His assertion that Maryland is focusing on a single solution — cell phone blocking — is inaccurate. And his insinuation that we are not doing enough is wrong (“Cell phone blocking isn’t the only answer for Md. Prisons,” June 15).

There is no one single solution to meeting the challenge of illegal cell phones in prisons. In the absence of jamming, which is generally illegal in the United States, the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services has conducted more than 20 months of research on all available technologies to better understand which cellular detection, managed access or jamming applications would work best in our prisons. This includes a multi-vendor pilot demonstration in the summer of 2009 and several subsequent long term single-vendor pilots.

But not waiting on a technological solution, we have attacked and significantly slowed the flow of cell phones on several fronts including: developing better intelligence, investing in better entrance and scanning technology, innovating approaches like using cell phone sniffingdogs, and data mining interdicted cell phones to help local prosecutors build better cases on inmates found with phones.

Better intelligence has made gang communication within our prisons increasingly more difficult and has become integral to gaining convictions for many Black Guerilla Family gang members in the past two years (alluded to by Mr. Bittner). Our $1.1 million entrance scanning technology has increased the percentage of cell phones captured before they make it inside our prisons by more than 10 percent through April of fiscal year 2011 compared to fiscal year 2010; our dogs have found almost 500 phones since 2008; and with our new forensics intelligence gathering abilities we are seeing close to a 90 percent conviction rate in the cell phone cases states’ attorneys are now taking to court.

None of this is guaranteed to stop all cell phones from getting into our prisons, but it has decreased the flow — by 32 percent in 2010 compared to 2009. But more importantly, these targeted efforts have helped make our prisons safer for staff and offenders. Serious assaults on staff have fallen by 50 percent from 2007 to 2010. On offenders they have fallen 35 percent.

Corrections systems must invest, innovate, develop partnerships and educate themselves in order to gain the necessary capabilities to fight this problem. Maryland has become a national leader in cell phone interdiction, and our efforts have been reported on by media here in Maryland and nationally.

Mr. Bittner’s comments misrepresent and cloud the exhaustive efforts we have made, not only to slow the flow of cell phones inside our prisons, but also to identify truly effective anti-cellular technologies and the best practices of their use.

Gary D. Maynard

The writer is secretary of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services.

Source

The post No Single Solution To Illegal Cell Phones In Prison appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

This editorial makes the case that there should be stiff felony penalties for anyone caught smuggling cell phones into prisons or accepting bribes for cell phones. And that those penalties should be even tougher for prison guards. While tougher penalties may be effective, we believe reducing the contraband value of cell phones in prison will be the most effective way to reduce prison cell phone smuggling. If prisoners no longer need to pay $1000 or more for access to a wireless phone, prison guards will no longer be willing to risk their careers and freedom to smuggle cell phones into jails.

It doesn’t take an advanced degree in criminal justice to understand that prison inmates never should have access to cell phones. They use them to plot violent crimes inside and outside the prison, plot escapes and conduct drug deals with other inmates or contacts on the outside.

Matthew Cate, secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, agrees. He said, “Cell phone smuggling into California’s prisons is a very serious and growing problem. Public safety officials in prisons and prosecutors on the outside need additional tools to combat cell phone smuggling to inmates.”

One such tool should be stiff felony penalties for anyone smuggling cell phones into prisons or accepting bribes for phones. Those penalties should be even tougher for prison guards.

Unfortunately, it is the guards who are suspected of providing most of the cell phones to inmates, often taking bribes. Yet California continues to be lax in passing laws to crack down on the problem.

Possessing a cell phone behind bars violates prison rules, but still is not illegal. Inmates can lose early release credits, and employees caught smuggling phones can lose their jobs.

Even when someone is caught, the penalty is extraordinarily light. Last month, Terry Lane, a former California correctional officer from San Jose, was sentenced to just 45 days in jail for smuggling several cell phones to state prison inmates. The bribery charge was dropped in a plea bargain.

The best way to discourage prison guards from taking bribes for delivering cell phones is the use of tough penalties that include long prison terms, firing and permanent disqualification from ever working in a prison.

There are a few bills floating around in the Legislature to stiffen penalties for those who bring phones to inmates and or accept bribes for doing so.

State Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles, has introduced two bills this year that add penalties for inmates, employees or visitors smuggling cell phones.

Sen. Elaine Alquist, D-Santa Clara, is carrying another bill that would require random searches of employees and contractors.

Action is long overdue. Prison officials say that the number of cell phones confiscated in California prisons has been growing rapidly over the past few years and has become a major problem that needs to be remedied.

If prison employees or visitors faced years behind bars for cell phone smuggling, we believe the practice would decline sharply. There is no good reason to delay legislation, even if there are added costs.

Source

The post Harsher Penalties For Smuggling Cell Phones Into Jails? appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.