Beaumont Enterprise argues both sides of recording confidential attorney-client communications in jail

There's an odd editorial in the Beaumont Enterprise about the Galveston County Jail ending its policy of taping inmate-attorney phone conversations. According to the Houston Chronicle, "Defense attorneys say the practice is common statewide." The Enterprise opines against the practice, favoring protection of client confidentiality, etc.. They close by pointing out that "Prosecutors wouldn't want defendants listening to their phone conversations. That right should be shared by both sides."

Then, strangely, in an argument as detailed than their own editorial judgment, they add:

ANOTHER VIEW: Continue for safety

Jail inmates need to remember an important reality: They simply do not have many of the same rights that other people enjoy. Most jails have a blanket policy of tape-recording all telephone conversations for a good reason: safety.

Jails are hard enough to run as it is. They are filled with many inmates who are dangerous or violent. Their interaction with outsiders has to be closely monitored, even with attorneys.

Prosecutors do not eavesdrop on these recorded conversations to learn tidbits they can use in court. The attorney-client conversations are simply included in the overall taping that goes on each day - again, for safety.

If this tradition is changed, what could prevent inmates from arguing that they should be able to talk to family members without being recorded? That could lead to all kinds of problems, such as inmates planning additional crimes.

This practice has not been a problem in our criminal justice system. It doesn't need fixing.

Grits finds this editorial construction fascinating: A publication basically arguing with itself, and giving its unnamed, theoretical opposition the last word. Is this a minority opinion from an editorial board member? Views expressed privately by the DA or law enforcement? Something somebody read on the Interwebs? Who knows? And what an argument, elevating this practice to a "tradition," no less!

I especially love the phony, red-herring question, "what could prevent inmates from arguing that they should be able to talk to family members without being recorded?' Uh ... perhaps the fact that attorneys engage in privileged communications with their clients while they're incarcerated and family members do not?

Grits doesn't doubt that recording attorney-client conversations in jail is common, and I wonder how often prosecutors or police sneak a listen, not for evidence to use in court but for leads, potential corroboration, etc.? Especially in high-profile cases where there's pressure to convict, but even under more workaday circumstances, the temptation to do so could be great without managerial checks, logs, etc. restricting who can access the data for what reason.