Reading Time: 4 minutes

On Aug. 28, Milwaukee County Judge David Borowski, during a hearing for a defendant charged with triple homicide, learned the defendant had used a county jail-issued tablet to discuss threatening witnesses. 

Borowski revoked the defendant’s tablet access and ordered him confined to his cell around the clock. The judge also pointed to two other recent instances in which tablets and laptops had been used in ways detrimental to personal and public safety.

“Why is the sheriff’s department handing laptops or iPads to defendants?” Borowski asked.

The comments soon went viral, picked up by candidates, public relations firms and political influencers. Few explained why tablets and laptops exist in correctional facilities, how common they are across the country or what actually happened in the security lapse. Instead, a nuanced issue was reduced to a single alarming anecdote.

The sheriff’s office would later note that it does not hand out iPads, but rather “pre-programmed devices with limited capabilities.”

Tablets have been used in jails and prisons nationally for well over a decade. They are now used in 48 state prison systems, the Federal Bureau of Prisons and numerous county jails throughout Wisconsin. They were introduced to help incarcerated people communicate with loved ones and access educational programming. Yes, the companies that provide them also profited from poor, disproportionately Black and brown families in the process. See Worth Rises for more information on this issue.

This is how the model works in Milwaukee County: Incarcerated users and their families pay the cost, not taxpayers. Over time, better vendors entered the market, prices dropped and some services became free. What has never changed is that these tablets do not provide internet access. They operate on a controlled intranet system. These cost and access dynamics are why tablets were requested in the first place.

Correctional officials have credited tablets with reducing violence and disturbances inside correctional facilities. Some jurisdictions have reported declines of up to 40%, and the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons described the agency’s tablet program as reducing administrative burdens and allowing staff to focus more on institutional safety, not as a security risk it was forced to accept.

This is not a partisan issue. Some of the nation’s most conservative states have rolled out tablets to every person in custody, regardless of charges or convictions. Sheriffs, who as a group tend to skew conservative, have widely approved their use because those who actually work with incarcerated people understand the benefits they provide.

Responding to the misuse of a few by eliminating a beneficial service for everyone mistakes the appearance of action for the work of actually solving the problem.

Tablets do not inherently create greater opportunities for witness intimidation. They simply create a more visible story when they happen to be the tool used. If tablets disappeared tomorrow, people could still call home, write letters or find other ways to intimidate witnesses.

We do not even know the full story of how this breach occurred. 

But tablet security features are more than capable of preventing situations like it. A more useful conversation would focus on identifying and closing the security gap that allowed it.

While I was incarcerated, I had access to a tablet during the final two years of my 17-year sentence. The growth, efficiency and preparation for the real world it gave me as a writer, student, researcher and future employee were light-years beyond what I achieved during the previous 15 years.

Most people do not realize that 90% to 95% of incarcerated people will eventually return home. The only question is who we want them to be when they do.

The nonprofit I founded while incarcerated, The Community, publishes rehabilitative videos, newsletters and podcast episodes that reach more than one million incarcerated people each month through these tablets. The positive feedback and outcomes have been considerable.

But what technology builds, fear can still take away.

I once tried to pay for the language-learning software Rosetta Stone so people inside could learn Spanish. Instead, all of the existing language tapes and CDs were removed because someone unfamiliar with the fact that they had been available for years worried that people might learn another language to plan something illegal.

That episode illustrates how easily a single anecdote — or even a hypothetical possibility — can define the entire conversation, producing a hammer where a screwdriver would do.

As a national advocate for criminal legal system reform, I have many concerns about tablets in jails and prisons, so I do not defend them uncritically. But many outlets covering this incident stopped at the sensational headline instead of doing the reporting the story required. Political candidates and influencers with their own agendas were then given free rein to use the incident as content.

Half a story, told quickly and left uncorrected, leaves the public further from understanding a system it pays dearly for every day.

Wisconsin deserves a justice system more worthy of that name. This episode demonstrates how far we remain from that goal — but also that we know exactly how to get there, if decision-makers take the problem seriously.

Shannon Ross is the founder of The Community and a founding member of the Justice Forward Wisconsin coalition, which prepares incarcerated people for healthier futures, creates opportunities for them and their loved ones and advocates for positive systems change for everyone impacted by the criminal legal system.

Editor’s note: This column was updated to correctly describe the facility where the defendant accused of using a tablet to intimidate witnesses was held.

Guest opinion: The debate over jail tablets is missing the point is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

On April 3, Gov. Tony Evers signed an executive order creating a process for many people in the Wisconsin prison system to officially apply for commutation. It runs through Jan. 4, 2027, when Evers leaves office.

Commutations have been enshrined in our constitution since 1848, and they have been used in virtually every state as well as by the federal government for almost as long. This provides a rare, time-limited opportunity to prioritize and amplify public safety in Wisconsin. Every political actor in this moment now shares responsibility for whether it succeeds. I want to speak directly to the current and future governor, as well as Wisconsin voters, about the responsibility they all carry.

So here are my three open letters to the people who will shape what comes next.

---

Gov. Tony Evers,

First, thank you sincerely for your record-setting and bold actions regarding pardons and, now, commutations. But two details stand out in order for the latter to be as successful as possible for society.

You have activated an unprecedented process that has fostered tremendous energy, time, expense, expectations, and hope among loved ones and advocates. It is crucial that you maintain that same courage to the end despite predictable attacks from critics. We work with families who have supported their incarcerated loved ones for decades as they await reunification and the chance to demonstrate that growth and redemption are real.

Equally important is how we consider and inform crime survivors. Proactively engaging crime survivors would strengthen the process. No single group or individual should have sway or control over a sentence given by a judge, or over an executive decision to amend that sentence, which is exactly why these powers exist. But the way crime survivors are informed — or not informed — of the possibility that the person who harmed them may be released is a serious shortcoming. If we are to truly create a justice system worthy of that name, we need to engage as fully as possible in addressing crime survivors’ needs and concerns.

---

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany,

I understand this is a political campaign and that the Republican Party has run on a tough-on-crime agenda for as long as I can remember. But I also see the values reflected in your journey as someone who built a family business helping people enjoy the beauty of the Northwoods. You understand the importance of helping people understand a topic that many take for granted and don’t think about until it becomes part of their experience.

A purple state is more difficult than a red state when it comes to addressing the failures of the criminal legal system. In a red state, the majority party doesn’t have to worry about losing power, so advocacy on the issue can focus on dollars, principles and efficacy. In a purple state, crime is too often treated as a political weapon, obscuring the reality that Wisconsin over-incarcerates, its processes inherently fail crime survivors’ needs, and state funding severely underinvests in rehabilitation and reentry efforts. All of this places extraordinary burdens on the personnel who work in the system to the point that suicide rates and substance abuse among correctional staff are some of the highest of any occupation. No one profits from the criminal legal system except those who literally profit from it.

This matters because your campaign rhetoric is building a reality that restricts your ability to govern wisely on this topic. We cannot incarcerate our way to public safety, and we know how to do better.

My request is that you consider your responsibility as the race continues. And if you do win — or, preferably, before the election — I ask that you meet with those of us who know the system from the carceral side to better understand how it can be improved.

---

Democratic gubernatorial field,

During the 2024 presidential election, the almost instinctual, thoughtless decision to use then-candidate Donald Trump’s felony convictions as the key to undermining his candidacy was breathtakingly hypocritical. As Bianca Tylek from Worth Rises stated, using the term felon as an epithet to attack Trump would hurt Black and Brown men more than it would hurt Trump. This sent the message that Democrats felt having a felony made a person unfit and that they were willing to stigmatize a population that they claimed to advocate for when it was politically convenient.

I say this: Do not shy away from the commutations issue. It is a good policy, and people with felony convictions cut across every demographic in society.

The data, research and millions of lived outcomes point very clearly to what works and what doesn’t regarding criminal legal systems change. Whatever happens over the remainder of this year and under the next governor regarding commutations and broader sentencing policy, Wisconsin leaders and citizens must confront a simple question: If states with lower incarceration rates, use of commutations and smaller prison populations and costs are achieving public safety outcomes equal to or better than ours, what is stopping us from doing the same?

Shannon Ross is a member of the Justice Forward Wisconsin coalition and founder/CEO of The Community — both focused on creating a justice system more worthy of that name.

Guest opinion: open letters on justice and public safety as Wisconsin weighs commutations is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.