Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Cell Jamming

Texas officials are working on a proposal to use cell-phone jamming technology at the Travis County jail. This technology will terminate all cell phone signals so that they may not be used in prisons. It has been performed in South Carolina and has been said that it does not interfere with two way communication between officers or outside signals. This action is being proposed because there have been a few incidents on death row where prisoners have used cell phones to threaten citizens.

In today's society, prisoners are coming up with more and more ways to break out of prison or to punish those who put them there. According to Kittle's article about this issue, cell phone use by inmates has increased because outsiders have found clever ways to get them inside the prison. Cell phone jamming is an excellent way to help prevent this from happening. This would reduce the communication between inmates and any outsider. One problem is that the jamming signal only works within the prison walls, so if an inmate found a way to make a call outside they could.
No matter what, some prisoners will find a way to get around this. However, to keep our society as safe as possible we should do what we can and help enforce cell jamming in prisons.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

We're In This Because Of Greed

State Representative, Rob Eissler, is being fined $10,600 and has to payback an estimated $18,000 from improper expenditures from his campaign donations. Before this decision was made he previously told the media that he might have to payback as much as $70,000.

Why such a big jump in dollar amounts?

In my opinion, Eissler knew up front the amount of donation money he had spent on things he wasn't suppose to. Otherwise, why would he give that high of a dollar estimate?

He had spent around $52,000 on paying his wife to run his legislative office and $17,000 to, as he says, "pay rent" for an Austin Condo. The law states that a representative may not use the donations to pay himself, spouse, or any dependent children. It also states that they may use to money for living expenses but not to buy real estate. The ethics commission is not making Eissler payback the full amount due to his claims of using part of the money on living expenses.

Without a doubt, Eissler should either have a larger fine or have to payback more of his campaign expenditures. He blatantly spent around $52,000 on his wife. That obviously goes against the state law yet he's not having to repay that amount. Eissler claims that part of the "rent" included living expenses. Therefore, the ethics commission lowered the amount he had to payback. What Eissler did was wrong and the fact that he's not having to payback what he owes is wrong. He's using money that others have given him for his own personal needs and not using it towards what it was intended for.