For profit prisons

[autisticdragonkin]

Are you trolling? For profit prisons jave nothing to do with the government.

The fault is of the government for not putting them under regulation and not cracking down on lobbying. The prisons themselves are just responding to an incentive created by the government

 

[Derbydollar]

The fault is of the government for not putting them under regulation and not cracking down on lobbying. The prisons themselves are just responding to an incentive created by the government

The government is actually responding to incentives created by the prisons. It's one of the reasons I look down on lobbying so much.
In order to get rid of for profit prisons, we need just and moral people in office, in the right place at the right time. It'll happen at some point, many people hold the same opinion.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

The government is actually responding to incentives created by the prisons. It's one of the reasons I look down on lobbying so much.
In order to get rid of for profit prisons, we need just and moral people in office, in the right place at the right time. It'll happen at some point, many people hold the same opinion.

The thing is that we have to take into account who has the responsibility in the end. I would say that governments have a responsibility to promote social welfare whereas corporations do not so government needs to force them to promote it which is part of its job

 

[Derbydollar]

The thing is that we have to take into account who has the responsibility in the end. I would say that governments have a responsibility to promote social welfare whereas corporations do not so government needs to force them to promote it which is part of its job

The government is not monolithic. What I am saying is that in order to rid our society of for profit prisons, they need to be phased out by just people who have been voted into office.
Also, I wouldn't be so fast to let corporations off the hook. They have moral obligations as well as economic ones. This is especially true if they are involving themselves in public order and government.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

The government is not monolithic. What I am saying is that in order to rid our society of for profit prisons, they need to be phased out by just people who have been voted into office.
Also, I wouldn't be so fast to let corporations off the hook. They have moral obligations as well as economic ones. This is especially true if they are involving themselves in public order and government.

I think it is important to look at the source of social obligations
Government gets social obligations because it is run by the people
Corporations do not have social obligations because they are only run by a small amount of people who may not even be citizens

 

[Derbydollar]

Corporations do not have social obligations because they are only run by a small amount of people who may not even be citizens

And yet, they are responsible for the lives of many inmates. They don't get a free ticket out just because they're private, they chose to enter the business they did.
I would argue the same for health insurance companies, for example. They provide for the common good of the people, and as such hold responsibility for that common good. They chose to enter that field of business.

The other example would be McDonalds. They don't provide for the common good, so who cares if they cut a meal or increase their prices or restructure their workforce? Competition will pick up the slack.
Private Prisons work on contract. They don't have competition. As such, they are personally responsible as humans to treat people with dignity and to follow the intentions of the judicial system.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

And yet, they are responsible for the lives of many inmates. They don't get a free ticket out just because they're private, they chose to enter the business they did.
I would argue the same for health insurance companies, for example. They provide for the common good of the people, and as such hold responsibility for that common good. They chose to enter that field of business.

The other example would be McDonalds. They don't provide for the common good, so who cares if they cut a meal or increase their prices or restructure their workforce? Competition will pick up the slack.
Private Prisons work on contract. They don't have competition. As such, they are personally responsible as humans to treat people with dignity and to follow the intentions of the judiciary system.

I would say that this is just the free market showing that government doesn't value such things as the quality of life of prisoners. Private prisons do have competition for getting the contracts but the market is less competitive than some markets.

 

[AnOminous]

How's this more likely than other forms of bribery?

Because it's an easy racket to run on an ongoing business basis. It's happened.

For instance, this case in Pennsylvania where two judges ended up sentenced to lengthy prison terms for taking kickbacks from a for-profit youth facility in order to have innocent as well as guilty youth funneled into their operation.

The government is actually responding to incentives created by the prisons. It's one of the reasons I look down on lobbying so much.
In order to get rid of for profit prisons, we need just and moral people in office, in the right place at the right time. It'll happen at some point, many people hold the same opinion.

>just and moral people in office
>murrica

 

[Lugal]

I would say that this is just the free market showing that government doesn't value such things as the quality of life of prisoners. Private prisons do have competition for getting the contracts but the market is less competitive than some markets.

Sounds like the typical 'the free market is perfect and everything that goes wrong must be the governments fault' argument.

You might as well be saying that gun murders are primarily the fault of the government, due to a failure to properly regulate firearms. Which, now that I think about it, is actually an argument that I could imagine one of those SJWs you hate so much making.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Sounds like the typical 'the free market is perfect and everything that goes wrong must be the governments fault' argument.

You might as well be saying that gun murders are primarily the fault of the government, due to a failure to properly regulate firearms. Which, now that I think about it, is actually an argument that I could imagine one of those SJWs you hate so much making.

SJWs would blame patriarchy for creating gun violence. Sane people blame gun violence on the government for failure to properly regulate firearms. I am not being anything remotely resembling a libertarian here and I am actually being very much not one by advocating government regulation when necessary. I just don't see an incentive for a publicly owned prison to reduce crime

 

[Lugal]

SJWs would blame patriarchy for creating gun violence. Sane people blame gun violence on the government for failure to properly regulate firearms. I am not being anything remotely resembling a libertarian here and I am actually being very much not one by advocating government regulation when necessary. I just don't see an incentive for a publicly owned prison to reduce crime

First off, I think most people would agree that in a gun murder, that the murderer is primarily at fault. You seemed be stating that the failings of private prisons are the fault of the government, and not inherent in the very concept.

Secondly, I don't know if any prison has an incentive to reduce crime. Prisons exists to segregate criminals from the law-abiding populace, and ideally to reform them. Reducing crime is the function of police and social services. The problem with private prisons is what they do have an incentive to do, which is to incarcerate as many people as they can hold, regardless of their guilt or innocence, while spending as little as possible, regardless of the safety and human rights of inmates and staff. The government could ameliorate these problems through regulation, but probably not eliminate them entirely.

Even if regulation truly eliminate the problems inherent in prison privatization, I think private prisons go against the principles of democratic society. I believe that the government has the powers it does, such as incarceration, because it is, theoretically, answerable to everyone. For it to delegate these powers to a some privately owned entity, beholden only to the individuals that own it, undermines democracy by blurring the lines between private corporations, the majority of which are decidedly undemocratic, and the democratic state.

 

[StarvingAutist]

The problem with private prisons is what they do have an incentive to do, which is to incarcerate as many people as they can hold, regardless of their guilt or innocence, while spending as little as possible, regardless of the safety and human rights of inmates and staff.

I always cringe when I hear people say "the government should be run like a business".

Because then, shit like this happens.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

You seemed be stating that the failings of private prisons are the fault of the government, and not inherent in the very concept.

I am saying that private prisons could be productive as I will explain

Private prisons would receive a payment of a certain amount for every year that the prisoner is outside of prison and does not commit a crime. Once they commit a crime then the prison would lose the annual payment for that ex convict. There would be no payment while in prison or a smaller amount of payment than they would receive outside the prison just in order to pay the marginal cost. This would cause profit to be maximized through rehabilitation

Even if regulation truly eliminate the problems inherent in prison privatization, I think private prisons go against the principles of democratic society. I believe that the government has the powers it does, such as incarceration, because it is, theoretically, answerable to everyone. For it to delegate these powers to a some privately owned entity, beholden only to the individuals that own it, undermines democracy by blurring the lines between private corporations, the majority of which are decidedly undemocratic, and the democratic state.

That isn't the case because the government is still in control, they are just getting someone who can do the job cheaper and more efficiently to do it for them while maintaining control

 

[Sanshain]

I am saying that private prisons could be productive as I will explain

Private prisons would receive a payment of a certain amount for every year that the prisoner is outside of prison and does not commit a crime. Once they commit a crime then the prison would lose the annual payment for that ex convict. There would be no payment while in prison or a smaller amount of payment than they would receive outside the prison just in order to pay the marginal cost. This would cause profit to be maximized through rehabilitation

This seems immensely cumbersome and pointless. It goes against basic economics, I.E payment for services/products rendered. I don't think there is any government in the world that would bite at the idea of paying something for nothing. Just because a prisoner doesn't re-offend doesn't mean they're contributing to society, or that the contributions they are in a position to make offset the cost of paying prisons for essentially doing nothing. What happens if an ex-con gets some form of social security? Then the government is paying them money, and they're paying the prisons money. All for a person who is statistically a drain on resources.

These arguments seem tragically flawed on a very basic level. They assume an incredibly idealized world where policy can be instituted at a whim, and bureaucracy is effectively non-existent. In case after case, capitalist markets have demonstrated a preference for cutting corners and undermining the competition as opposed to delivering quality services that ensure customer loyalty. Short-term thinking is an absolute; nobody is trying to make a better system, they're just trying to milk the existing one as much as possible. As long as prisons can operate on a for-profit basis, there will be overwhelming incentive to abuse a basically free labor force in as many ways as possible.

 

[Lugal]

I am saying that private prisons could be productive as I will explain

Private prisons would receive a payment of a certain amount for every year that the prisoner is outside of prison and does not commit a crime. Once they commit a crime then the prison would lose the annual payment for that ex convict. There would be no payment while in prison or a smaller amount of payment than they would receive outside the prison just in order to pay the marginal cost. This would cause profit to be maximized through rehabilitation


That isn't the case because the government is still in control, they are just getting someone who can do the job cheaper and more efficiently to do it for them while maintaining control

That doesn't make any sense. Rehabilitation isn't some kind of assembly line were efficiency can be reliably optimized. You're applying the logic of industry where it simply doesn't fit.

And lets just say we could just rehabilitate a criminal in the same kind of industrial process as the manufacture of cars. What makes you say that a private company could do it better than the government? I always hear proponents of privatization repeat this argument like an article of faith, but I've yet to be convinced that it's actually the case.

You seem to be clinging to an ideology that states that the private sector will always work better than the public sector, but this distinction is ultimately pretty arbitrary. The only distinction is that the public sector is at least theoretically answerable to the public.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

That doesn't make any sense. Rehabilitation isn't some kind of assembly line were efficiency can be reliably optimized. You're applying the logic of industry where it simply doesn't fit.

And lets just say we could just rehabilitate a criminal in the same kind of industrial process as the manufacture of cars. What makes you say that a private company could do it better than the government? I always hear proponents of privatization repeat this argument like an article of faith, but I've yet to be convinced that it's actually the case.

You seem to be clinging to an ideology that states that the private sector will always work better than the public sector, but this distinction is ultimately pretty arbitrary. The only distinction is that the public sector is at least theoretically answerable to the public.

I think that a private company would have more of a motive to rehabilitate if it got those incentives whereas government doesn't have much of a motive to rehabilitate. I am advocating a startup give such an offer to government rather than government set it up

 

[Lugal]

I think that a private company would have more of a motive to rehabilitate if it got those incentives whereas government doesn't have much of a motive to rehabilitate. I am advocating a startup give such an offer to government rather than government set it up

You're completely missing the point. Criminals are human beings with agency, not machines that you can fix like you would a car or a computer. You can't industrialize rehabilitation. It might be possible if we had a perfect understanding of the human mind and could reliably determine what exactly lead a particular person to crime, but at this point in time, we lack that capability.

And as for the idea of paying prison companies for every year a released convict doesn't commit another crime, wouldn't that provide an incentive to incarcerate innocent people? Who could be better trusted to not re-offend the someone who never actually offended in the first place?

 

[autisticdragonkin]

And as for the idea of paying prison companies for every year a released convict doesn't commit another crime, wouldn't that provide an incentive to incarcerate innocent people? Who could be better trusted to not re-offend the someone who never actually offended in the first place?

It would except for that the prisons are not the ones who capture and try suspected criminals. I am not advocating this in the USA because politicians and judges are so corrupt, only in somewhere without lobbying and with responsible debt management. I do believe that if lots of money could be made through rehabilitating criminals then there would be way more people in the world ready to fund research.

(honestly I feel like everyone thinks that I am always advocating stuff be done in America just because I take positions that seem superficially American)

 

[Lugal]

honestly I feel like everyone thinks that I am always advocating stuff be done in America just because I take positions that seem superficially American

Maybe because a lot of what you're saying seems like the same tired Reaganite arguments we've been hearing the last few decades?

 

[AnOminous]

You're completely missing the point. Criminals are human beings with agency, not machines that you can fix like you would a car or a computer.

You're talking to someone who literally can't understand that.