The Pixelated Prisoner by Carolyn McKay

Author:Carolyn McKay [McKay, Carolyn]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Social Science, Criminology, Penology, Privacy & Surveillance
ISBN: 9781351619240
Google: H2NgDwAAQBAJ
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2018-06-13T04:44:24+00:00

Loss of confidentiality

While the ability to hold confidential conversations with, and to give instructions to lawyers is almost always compromised by incarceration, opportunities for prisoners to hold confidential conversations with their lawyers may be further compromised by video link (Poulin 2003; Hillman 2007; Kluss 2008; Ridout 2010; Rowden et al. 2010; Bellone 2013; Ward 2015; Gibbs 2017). Privacy issues were certainly raised by many prisoners during my interviews. Some, like M14, were happy with the level of privacy in the AVL studios:

Yeah, they give you privacy and that when they just leave you in the room by yourself when you’re in [AVL] court.

But F09 asked:

How are you supposed to talk privately to your solicitor if you’re video linked?

Similarly F02 said:

You’re supposed to be able to speak to your lawyer, you know, one-on-one … there’s nowhere you can speak with your lawyer without them listening.

Bellone’s (2013) study concluded that videoconferencing has negative impacts for private communications, resulting in compromised access and inadequate representation. Similarly, Davis (2001) found that ‘virtual’ presence lessens opportunities for private communication between an incarcerated defendant and legal representative. Confidentiality may be compromised by the undesirable audio bleed into and out of insufficiently soundproofed prison video suites (de Simone and d’Aquino 2004; McKay 2016, 2017; Gibbs 2017). Because of the prison noise, M08 preferred to meet with his solicitor face-to-face:

I’m not the best with my hearing and umm in here it’s pretty hard to hear what’s going on over phones, yeah it’s best to see him face-to-face … there’s always noise going on and it’s hard to hear what they’re saying on the phone.

Intrusive sounds and technical problems militate against prisoners’ ability to concentrate on and comprehend legal conferences. The ability of prisoners to freely speak with their lawyers before and during proceedings is thereby compromised (Terry et al. 2010; Dean 2010).

While, as discussed above, some prisoners were happy to make use of the on-desk ‘privacy handset’ to speak with their remote lawyers during court proceedings, others were deeply suspicious. For example, M11 thought there was a possibility that someone could ‘read your lips’. There are suggestions that telephone calls at the bar table with prisoners are not private and are monitored as per justice agencies’ policies (Kluss 2008), an assertion contested by the government (Hatzistergos 2008). Several prisoners also expressed concerns about internet security: F01 was worried whether the video link could be ‘intercepted in the middle’ and wondered ‘who else can listen to what we’re doing and saying’. M13 treated the technology with suspicion, being concerned about his conversations being ‘out in the airwaves’ where it might be picked up by someone. F08 preferred to meet her legal team face-to-face because authorities: ‘can’t record conversations.’ Both F08 and F11 felt that they could not speak freely with their remote lawyers who were in court and sitting too close to the prosecution. Videoconferencing may thus hamper confidential communications and rapport between prisoners and lawyers, flowing to issues of fairness (Plotnikoff and Woolfson 2000; Gibbs 2017).

While discussing a

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.