Internet access restrictions for prisoners have long been a complicated topic, particularly regarding the overarching goals and whose interests are served by these restrictions. By examining existing literature, we hope to grasp a better understanding of the purpose behind these restrictions and evaluate their implications on prisoners’ rights, rehabilitation, and societal reintegration.
It is presumed that the primary goal of restricting internet access in prisons often relates to ensuring security and preventing criminal activities. According to Jewkes and Reisdorf (2016), unrestricted internet access poses risks of illegal communication, cybercrimes, and the perpetuation of harmful behaviors. Authorities argue that limiting internet usage minimizes opportunities for prisoners to engage in illicit activities, such as planning crimes or harassing victims. This perspective underscores a security-first approach, prioritizing the protection of the broader community over inmates’ access to digital resources.
However, the restrictive policies also reflect broader societal and political goals. Lendvai and Gosztonyi (2021) highlight how these measures often align with punitive ideologies, where the denial of internet access is seen as part of the punishment itself. Such restrictions can symbolize societal disapproval of criminal behavior, reinforcing inmates’ isolation from the digital world as a form of retribution.
In contrast, some scholars argue that these limitations may hinder rehabilitation efforts. Barreiro-Gen and Novo-Corti (2015) emphasize the potential of collaborative learning environments, even within restricted internet frameworks, to foster education and skill development. Education is a critical component of rehabilitation, and denying access to digital learning tools will undoubtedly impede inmates’ ability to reintegrate into an increasingly digital society. Similarly, Harrison (2018) explores how restricted internet access undermines opportunities for prisoners to pursue higher education and gain employable skills, ultimately affecting their post-release success.
The overarching goal, therefore, appears to be a balancing act between security, punishment, and rehabilitation. While authorities often emphasize security concerns, others argue for a more nuanced approach that integrates controlled access to technology. Barreiro-Gen, et.al (2017) in “E-Prisons and New Technologies” advocate for innovative solutions, such as monitored and restricted internet environments, to support educational and rehabilitative goals while addressing security risks.
In practice, the denial of internet access may disproportionately impact prisoners’ ability to exercise their rights. Brown (2015) examines how limited access to digital resources affects inmates’ ability to research legal materials, potentially compromising their right to fair representation and due process. This raises ethical concerns about whether such restrictions align with broader human rights principles. Lendvai and Gosztonyi (2021) further argue that the European Court of Human Rights has acknowledged the importance of digital access for prisoners, emphasizing its role in maintaining human dignity and fostering rehabilitation.
Whose overarching goal does this policy serve? The answer is multifaceted. While it allegedly serves the public by enhancing security, it also reflects societal attitudes toward punishment and control. However, it is crucial to consider whether these goals align with the broader objectives of reducing recidivism and promoting reintegration. Scholars like Harrison (2018) and Barreiro-Gen et al. (2017) suggest that a more rehabilitative approach, incorporating controlled digital access, could better serve both inmates and society in the long term.
In conclusion, the restrictions on internet access in New Jersey prisons represent a complex interplay of security, punitive ideologies, and rehabilitative goals. Policymakers should consider evidence-based approaches that balance these objectives and seriously regard the transformative potential of controlled internet access for inmates in supporting education, rights, and successful reintegration into society. By doing so, they can address both immediate security concerns and the broader societal goal of reducing recidivism and fostering successful reentry into the community which will inevitably enhance the level of public health and safety.
References:
Barreiro-Gen, M., Novo-Corti, I., & Varela-Candamio, L. (2017). E-Prisons and New Technologies. Journal of Social and Policy Studies, 13(2), 113-128.
Barreiro-Gen, M., & Novo-Corti, I. (2015). Collaborative Learning in Environments with Restricted Access to the Internet. Education and Information Technologies, 20(3), 527-541.
Brown, S. (2015). How Twenty-First Century Technology Affects Inmates’ Access to Prison Law Libraries in the United States Prison System. Journal of Correctional Education, 66(1), 34-45.
Harrison, J. (2018). Prisoners and Their Access to the Internet in the Pursuit of Education. Prison Education Quarterly, 10(4), 45-59.
Jewkes, Y., & Reisdorf, B. C. (2016). A Brave New World: The Problems and Opportunities Presented by New Media Technologies in Prisons. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 16(5), 534-551.
Lendvai, A., & Gosztonyi, G. (2021). ‘Access Denied’ – Interpreting the Digital Divide by Examining the Right of Prisoners to Access the Internet in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, 21(1), 89-113.