Aren't private prisons the ones with the money and business incentive to and history of lobbying to criminalize non-violent and/or victimless crimes with harsh sentencing minimums? Is the "greater...
Aren't private prisons the ones with the money and business incentive to and history of lobbying to criminalize non-violent and/or victimless crimes with harsh sentencing minimums? Is the "greater issue" lots of people getting sent up the river or a system that incarcerates people it could be rehabilitating? Is the problem lots of crime or is intense criminalization? Is the problem that people want to do crime or is it that the easiest way to make ends meet for some folks is with crime?
Private prisons may fail in myriad ways, but the question is whether they are worse than state institutions.
No. It is not. The question is whether mass incarceration is a failed project or not.
The second argument claims it is immoral to profit from suffering. But companies have always been allowed to profit from permissible forms of suffering, as anyone who has ever missed a loan repayment knows.
So... "the lenders get to profit off suffering! Why not the prisons?" Great.
This whole article just seems like comparing two incarnations of a failed system. As if our only two options were brutal punishment by the state and brutal punishment by corporations.
I mean, I think this is one of those "The Economist isn't wrong, but is this really the hill they want to die on?" articles, because the US government totally has a money and business incentive to...
I mean, I think this is one of those "The Economist isn't wrong, but is this really the hill they want to die on?" articles, because the US government totally has a money and business incentive to criminalize non-violent and/or victimless crimes with harsh sentencing minimums. License plates don't make themselves after all.
I think, if I had to try and condense this article, it'd be that sure for-profit prisons are bad, but they're not worse than the regular federal system. Which I think is true, even if it's not exactly a particularly helpful observation.
That thesis can be noticed in phrases like "The first [reason to abolish private prisons] suggests that prisoners should be treated like people, not profit centres. But this is hardly unique to private prisons."
Yeah. They are, for choosing to die on this hill. The thrust of the article could have been "yeah for-profit prisons are bad but the real problem the Democrats should be facing down is our broken...
The Economist isn't wrong
Yeah. They are, for choosing to die on this hill. The thrust of the article could have been "yeah for-profit prisons are bad but the real problem the Democrats should be facing down is our broken 'criminal justice system.'"
they're not worse than the regular federal system
Federal prisons don't have a motivation to shy away from rehabilitation and overturning false convictions. The fact that it is in the interest and their shareholders interest to increase recidivism makes them worse.
Federal prisons totally have motivation to increase recidivism and shy away from rehabilitation. If not, why did Nixon and Reagan institute a policy of mass incarceration for nonviolent crimes?...
Federal prisons totally have motivation to increase recidivism and shy away from rehabilitation. If not, why did Nixon and Reagan institute a policy of mass incarceration for nonviolent crimes? For reasons totally other than disenfranchising voters, and appeasing segregationists?
Also, the fact that shareholders benefit from increased recidivism is 100% the governments doing. If we wanted it to be different we could pay based on recidivism rate. But we don't, because the federal government doesnt want that.
Ultimately, I think the economist is calling out the idea that Government good, corporations bad, while not realizing that the corporate incentive structure for private prisons is 100% set by the government. So to blame privatization is to shift the blame off you (and the government) to a corporate boogy man.
I have a similar stance here in that the state and the big business interests are in lock step building a system that entreches the powerful and enriches the wealthy. Saying one or the other has...
the corporate incentive structure for private prisons is 100% set by the government
I have a similar stance here in that the state and the big business interests are in lock step building a system that entreches the powerful and enriches the wealthy. Saying one or the other has the answer is wrong insofar as we are talking about pursuing a business as usual approach to an issue.
Private prisons, state prisons. Whatever. The problem is prison.
I should add that part of the reason this makes me upset is because I live in a town in CA where a sheriff publicly, on video, murdered a man by locking him in a chair for over 24 hours until he...
I should add that part of the reason this makes me upset is because I live in a town in CA where a sheriff publicly, on video, murdered a man by locking him in a chair for over 24 hours until he died. And now we celebrate banning private prisons. We do nothing to actually solve the root of the crimes of our criminal justice system, and to pretend to ourselves that we're helping by ensuring it's g men who kill our civilians instead of corporate suits just angers me.
The link goes to the beta site because it is way better than the old one. If you're blocked by the paywall, click here. While the title's argument is inflammatory, I think the article makes some...
The link goes to the beta site because it is way better than the old one. If you're blocked by the paywall, click here.
While the title's argument is inflammatory, I think the article makes some good points that abolishing private prisons won't fix the greater issue, and that, as with all industries, increased competition and regulation could reign in the worst instincts of the private prison industry.
The problem here is that no matter how much competition there is, private prison industry is driven by profit. Private companies should not run prisons to make money. Prisons should rehabilitate...
increased competition and regulation could reign in the worst instincts of the private prison industry.
The problem here is that no matter how much competition there is, private prison industry is driven by profit. Private companies should not run prisons to make money. Prisons should rehabilitate people and (to a lesser extent) punish them for the crimes they committed.
Isn't regulation as a solution dicey at best when the people write the regulations are frequently in the pockets of the people being regulated? I'm curious to hear more about what you think these...
regulation
Isn't regulation as a solution dicey at best when the people write the regulations are frequently in the pockets of the people being regulated?
good points ... greater issue
I'm curious to hear more about what you think these are. It's very clear that we have wide differences of opinion on this one.
Yeah!!! Hitler's original chancellorship was caused by a coalition of liberals with conservatives and fascists to hold the line against socialists (read: marxist-leninists).
Yeah!!! Hitler's original chancellorship was caused by a coalition of liberals with conservatives and fascists to hold the line against socialists (read: marxist-leninists).
Aren't private prisons the ones with the money and business incentive to and history of lobbying to criminalize non-violent and/or victimless crimes with harsh sentencing minimums? Is the "greater issue" lots of people getting sent up the river or a system that incarcerates people it could be rehabilitating? Is the problem lots of crime or is intense criminalization? Is the problem that people want to do crime or is it that the easiest way to make ends meet for some folks is with crime?
No. It is not. The question is whether mass incarceration is a failed project or not.
So... "the lenders get to profit off suffering! Why not the prisons?" Great.
This whole article just seems like comparing two incarnations of a failed system. As if our only two options were brutal punishment by the state and brutal punishment by corporations.
I mean, I think this is one of those "The Economist isn't wrong, but is this really the hill they want to die on?" articles, because the US government totally has a money and business incentive to criminalize non-violent and/or victimless crimes with harsh sentencing minimums. License plates don't make themselves after all.
I think, if I had to try and condense this article, it'd be that sure for-profit prisons are bad, but they're not worse than the regular federal system. Which I think is true, even if it's not exactly a particularly helpful observation.
That thesis can be noticed in phrases like "The first [reason to abolish private prisons] suggests that prisoners should be treated like people, not profit centres. But this is hardly unique to private prisons."
Yeah. They are, for choosing to die on this hill. The thrust of the article could have been "yeah for-profit prisons are bad but the real problem the Democrats should be facing down is our broken 'criminal justice system.'"
Federal prisons don't have a motivation to shy away from rehabilitation and overturning false convictions. The fact that it is in the interest and their shareholders interest to increase recidivism makes them worse.
Federal prisons totally have motivation to increase recidivism and shy away from rehabilitation. If not, why did Nixon and Reagan institute a policy of mass incarceration for nonviolent crimes? For reasons totally other than disenfranchising voters, and appeasing segregationists?
Also, the fact that shareholders benefit from increased recidivism is 100% the governments doing. If we wanted it to be different we could pay based on recidivism rate. But we don't, because the federal government doesnt want that.
Ultimately, I think the economist is calling out the idea that Government good, corporations bad, while not realizing that the corporate incentive structure for private prisons is 100% set by the government. So to blame privatization is to shift the blame off you (and the government) to a corporate boogy man.
I have a similar stance here in that the state and the big business interests are in lock step building a system that entreches the powerful and enriches the wealthy. Saying one or the other has the answer is wrong insofar as we are talking about pursuing a business as usual approach to an issue.
Private prisons, state prisons. Whatever. The problem is prison.
Agreed
I should add that part of the reason this makes me upset is because I live in a town in CA where a sheriff publicly, on video, murdered a man by locking him in a chair for over 24 hours until he died. And now we celebrate banning private prisons. We do nothing to actually solve the root of the crimes of our criminal justice system, and to pretend to ourselves that we're helping by ensuring it's g men who kill our civilians instead of corporate suits just angers me.
The link goes to the beta site because it is way better than the old one. If you're blocked by the paywall, click here.
While the title's argument is inflammatory, I think the article makes some good points that abolishing private prisons won't fix the greater issue, and that, as with all industries, increased competition and regulation could reign in the worst instincts of the private prison industry.
The problem here is that no matter how much competition there is, private prison industry is driven by profit. Private companies should not run prisons to make money. Prisons should rehabilitate people and (to a lesser extent) punish them for the crimes they committed.
Isn't regulation as a solution dicey at best when the people write the regulations are frequently in the pockets of the people being regulated?
I'm curious to hear more about what you think these are. It's very clear that we have wide differences of opinion on this one.
As Christopher Hitchens put it: liberals are dangerous compromisers.
Yeah!!! Hitler's original chancellorship was caused by a coalition of liberals with conservatives and fascists to hold the line against socialists (read: marxist-leninists).