Prison official perceptions of technology in prison
| Author | Jason Waitkus,Teresa A Booker,Andrea Mufarreh |
| Date | 01 July 2022 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1462474521990777 |
| Published date | 01 July 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Prison official
perceptions of
technology in prison
Andrea Mufarreh
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY Graduate
Center, New York, NY, USA
Jason Waitkus
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY, USA
Teresa A Booker
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY Graduate
Center, New York, NY, USA
Abstract
Several state prisons have provided tablets to imprisoned people which appears to be
indicative of a larger trend to increase access to technology for imprisoned people.
However,access to and the use of technology in prison has not been evaluated by social
scientists. This study surveyed 70 prison officials from six states to report their atti-
tudes toward access to and the use of tablets in prison for imprisoned people and for
the prisons themselves. Survey results show that prison officials who work in prisons
with more access to technology are more likely to believe technology to be a positive
contribution for imprisoned people.
Keywords
attitudes, correction officers, corrections, digital, prison, prison officials, tablet,
technology
Corresponding author:
Andrea Mufarreh, Department of Criminal Justice, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY Graduate
Center, New York, NY, USA.
Email: amufarreh@jjay.cuny.edu
Punishment & Society
!The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1462474521990777
journals.sagepub.com/home/pun
2022, Vol. 24(3) 410–432
Introduction
This study is focused on correction officials’ perception of tablets in the U.S. While
the use of tablets in prison occurs both within and outside of the U.S., the U.S. has
one of the highest incarceration rates in the world (Wagner and Sawyer, 2018), and
95% of all state prisoners will be released from prison and will reenter into society
(Hughes and Wilson, 2020). As such, understanding imprisoned people’s access to
technology for the purpose of communication, education, and increasing digital
literacy overall in preparation for release, is important. Furthermore, access to
technology in prisons, particularly access to tablets in prison, the newest techno-
logical advancement in U.S. state prisons, is understudied by social scientists.
According to journalistic accounts, nine state prisons
1
have adopted tablets to
be used by imprisoned people since 2017 (Finkel and Bertram, 2019). Four
major technology companies have filled in the technology gap in prisons by build-
ing “corrections-grade tablets” for imprisoned people, such as JPay, GTL, Edovo,
and American Prison Data Systems (APDS, n.d.; Edovo, n.d.; GTL, n.d.; JPay,
Inc., n.d.). Both JPay and GTL provide tablets for imprisoned people to commu-
nicate with people outside of prison by email, ecards, videogram, or video calls
(GTL, n.d.;; JPay, Inc., n.d.). Tablets can also be used to listen to music, play
games, view educational content, watch news and movies, conduct legal research,
file grievances, and/or to make requests to correctional staff. On the other hand,
Edovo and American Prison Data Systems provide tablets with educational, job
training, and rehabilitative courses for imprisoned people (APDS, n.d.; Edovo, n.
d.).
Generally speaking, tablets provided by Edovo and American Prison Data
Systems are purchased by the prisons and provided to imprisoned people by cor-
rection officers for the duration of an educational, job training, or rehabilitative
courses (APDS, n.d.; Edovo, n.d.). In contrast, tablets provided by JPay may be
provided to imprisoned people by the prison and are shared at kiosks in housing
areas in prisons, and GTL tablets can be purchased by an imprisoned person’s
family members and loved ones for individual use (GTL, n.d.; JPay, Inc., n.d.).
As mentioned, there is the potential that tablets can be positive for imprisoned
people. However, they can be abused. In July 2018, Idaho state prisons revoked
tablets from imprisoned people because 364 of those who were particularly tech
savvy hacked into them and stole hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of
credits to be used for music, games, and other activities (Mitchell, 2018).
Colorado state prisons provided imprisoned people with tablets in 2016 and
then revoked them in 2018, as a result of other security concerns (Mitchell,
2018). In addition, journalistic accounts address possible cost-prohibitive problems
with the tablets in which imprisoned people pay above-market in order to utilize
basic recreational services (i.e. listening to music, reading e-books, etc.) and to send
messages to loved ones (Finkel and Bertram, 2019).
It is important to understand the perceptions of prison officials on this new
development since prison officials may have insight as to whether tablets are
411
Mufarreh et al.
To continue reading
Request your trial