The Digital Prison: How Nevada's Tablet Program Betrays Incarcerated People and Their Families

The Promise Versus The Reality

In 2023, the Nevada legislature passed Assembly Bill 35 with near-unanimous support, authorizing telecommunications tablets for incarcerated individuals within state correctional facilities. The bill was presented as a progressive step forward—a way to provide educational opportunities, facilitate family connections, improve access to medical care, and prepare people for reentry into society. Proponents argued that these tablets would humanize the carceral experience and provide crucial resources for rehabilitation.

However, the implementation has revealed a deeply troubling reality. Rather than providing the promised services, the tablet program has become yet another revenue-generating scheme that preys on incarcerated individuals and their financially strained families. The program, administered by telecommunications company ViaPath, has resulted in exorbitant fees that disproportionately burden low-income families while failing to deliver on its core promises.

The Cost of Connection: Financial Exploitation

The most immediate concern revolves around the financial burden placed on families. As Nick Shepack of the Fines and Fees Justice Center highlighted, the service charges create an inequitable system where those adding smaller amounts—often families living paycheck to paycheck—face disproportionately high fees. Adding $10 to a tablet incurs a $5 service charge, essentially a 50% tax on communication for the most vulnerable families.

This financial exploitation is particularly egregious given that many of the promised “free” services remain unavailable. The tablets were supposed to provide access to medical care, educational resources, and grievance systems at no cost, but these features have not been implemented. Instead, incarcerated individuals and their families are paying premium prices for basic communication while waiting for the substantive benefits that justified the program’s existence.

Regulatory Failures and Contractual Ambiguities

The situation is further complicated by regulatory changes and contractual ambiguities. James Dzurenda, NDOC prisons director, attributed some cost increases to Federal Communications Commission rulings that rolled back regulations capping phone call costs. While this may explain part of the problem, it doesn’t excuse the department’s failure to anticipate and mitigate these impacts.

More concerning is the apparent lack of clarity in the contract with ViaPath. Democratic Assemblymember Brittney Miller expressed legitimate concern about the uncertainty surrounding revenue sharing, noting that the state has no idea whether its share will be “$17 or $17,000.” This lack of transparency and foresight in contractual agreements is unacceptable when dealing with vulnerable populations.

State Senator Rochelle Nguyen highlighted another critical issue: the disconnect between what NDOC sought in their request for proposal and what was ultimately approved. The appearance of cheaper services being excluded from the final contract raises serious questions about whether financial interests are being prioritized over the welfare of incarcerated people.

The Human Cost of Implementation Failures

The failure to provide promised services has real human consequences. Incarcerated individuals cannot access medical services through tablets because the department lacks electronic medical records systems. They cannot file grievances electronically because the Offender Management System requires updates. These are not minor oversights—they represent fundamental failures to deliver on the program’s core purposes.

Meanwhile, as Shepack noted, lockdowns are at an all-time high, meaning incarcerated people spend more time in their cells and rely more heavily on these tablets for mental stimulation and connection. The current system charges 5 cents per minute for streaming entertainment—another financial burden on people who have little to no income.

A Betrayal of American Principles

This situation represents a profound betrayal of the principles that should guide our justice system. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and while tablet access might not rise to that level, creating financial barriers to communication and essential services certainly constitutes excessive and punitive measures. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, yet this system disproportionately harms low-income families.

Our justice system should aim for rehabilitation and successful reentry, not revenue generation. By allowing corporations to profit from incarceration and by implementing systems that extract money from vulnerable populations, we undermine the very purpose of our correctional institutions. This isn’t just bad policy—it’s a moral failing that contradicts our nation’s commitment to justice and human dignity.

The Path Forward: Accountability and Reform

First, Nevada must immediately review and renegotiate the contract with ViaPath. The state should cap service charges, particularly for small transactions that disproportionately affect low-income families. Revenue sharing should be transparent and predictable, with funds directed toward improving services rather than general departmental budgets.

Second, the state must hold ViaPath accountable for delivering all promised services. Access to medical care, grievance systems, and educational resources should not be delayed indefinitely. If electronic medical records are a barrier, the department should expedite their implementation rather than using them as an excuse for inaction.

Third, lawmakers should consider following other states that have taken more aggressive action to protect incarcerated individuals and their families from exploitative practices. Capping commissary markups was a step in the right direction; similar protections are needed for telecommunications services.

Finally, we must confront the broader issue of profit in our justice system. Whether through private prisons, commissary markups, or telecommunications contracts, the monetization of incarceration creates perverse incentives that undermine rehabilitation and human dignity. True justice requires putting people before profits.

Conclusion: Justice Demands Better

The Nevada tablet program represents a microcosm of everything wrong with our approach to incarceration. What began as a well-intentioned effort to modernize prisons and provide resources has become yet another system of exploitation. This is not just a policy failure—it’s a moral failure that compounds the punishment of incarcerated individuals and burdens their families.

As a society that values freedom, justice, and human dignity, we must demand better. We must insist that rehabilitation—not revenue—guides our correctional policies. We must protect vulnerable populations from exploitation, even when they are behind bars. And we must remember that how we treat those who are incarcerated reflects our fundamental values as a nation.

The digital age should bring progress and connection, not new forms of oppression. It’s time for Nevada—and all states—to ensure that technology in prisons serves people, not profits.