5 ms·

I mostly agree that the record makes it harder to get a job and give up crime, but what about the deterrence factor? How many more would commit crimes knowing t

by webXL 9y ago

I mostly agree that the record makes it harder to get a job and give up crime, but what about the deterrence factor? How many more would commit crimes knowing that it wouldn't have any impact on their ability to get a decent job right after serving some time? > A corporation is allowed to quietly syphon away billions of dollars from society using clever government lobbying and tax avoidance schemes Was it society's to begin with? And you can't completely pin the financial crisis on the likes of JP Morgan when the feds bailed them out with our tax dollars. That was the crime.

derekp7 9y ago
But is there really a deterrence factor? Most people don't commit crimes, due to a personal moral code. Those who have morals that don't get in the way of crime, just use the deterrence factor to find ways of not getting caught. Now what would really help, especially with recidivism, is to use the profit motive of prisons in a different way. First-time offenders-- the prison gets paid full price. If an offender returns to prison, the prison should get paid less, or not at all. That would encourage the private prison system to rehabilitate, and provide post-release re-integration assistance.
- knodi123 9y ago
  > That would encourage the private prison system to rehabilitate, and provide post-release re-integration assistance. Or to make tiers of service, where second-timers get a cheaper and more brutal experience which happens to be cheaper for the prison.
- bluejekyll 9y ago
  Alternatively, there could be a payment based directly on the outcome. Say there is a period in which the ex-con pays back 'restitution', probably based on the crime and length of sentence. During that period the ex-con owes some percentage of their paycheck. That is, this prison makes most of its money from the restitution payments. This would encourage prisons to also take an active role in finding ex-cons jobs afterwards, advocating for the highest possible pay (since they make more money), and also encourages them to train/teach the prisoner more to make them more likely to get a job as an ex-con. I think most victim advocates would be ok with this too as there would continue to be a penalty imposed for the crime.
- shagie 9y ago
  The private prisons have an interest in filling beds. That is where the money is. They don't get money by reducing recidivism, or providing job training, or providing preventative and maintenance health care (dentists to fill cavities so that the person doesn't need to get a root canal when they're released and then runs out of money on medical bills...) Whats more, like stadiums and cities (the city paying the difference if there isn't enough attendance), there are private prisons that have a "lockup quota" ( https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jul/31/report-finds-two-thirds-private-prison-contracts-include-lockup-quotas/ https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jul/31/report-find... | http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Criminal-Lockup-Quota,-In-the-Public-Interest,-9.13.pdf http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Criminal-Lockup-... ) where the state pays for the bed be it full or empty. This is part of the contract, and officials making short sighted deals that have the appearance of reducing costs while actually raising them in the long term is a oft heard refrain. I have difficulty believing that any private, for profit company would be working to negatively impact its bottom line. While it is possible that there are places where improvements in efficiency over government run facilities can be had, at the end of the day the duty of the company is to the shareholders ( CXW - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoreCivic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoreCivic , GEO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEO_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEO_Group ) rather than to the taxpayers of a state. https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/08/23/866325/0/en/Pomerantz-Law-Firm-Announces-the-Filing-of-a-Class-Action-against-Correction-Corporation-of-America-and-Certain-Officers-CXW.html https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/08/23/866325/0/e... > Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) CCA’s facilities lacked adequate safety and security standards and were less efficient at offering correctional services than the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) facilities; (ii) CCA’s rehabilitative services for inmates were less effective than those provided by BOP; (iii) consequently, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) was unlikely to renew and/or extend its contracts with CCA; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, CCA’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The profit motive for a private prison has shown in the past that in the interest in short term gains they will understaff and cut back on programs. Give them everyone who has been incarcerated before and they'll take the profits they've gotten and close that franchise. Furthermore, the lobbying efforts of private companies creates odd incentives in writing laws and negotiating contracts compared to facilities run and maintained by state or federal workers.
kakarot 9y ago
You're blaming the fed for something they did under metaphorical gunpoint. "Too big to fail" isn't just a saying, and ultimately if we are to blame someone other than our financial oppressors, the responsibility rests on the people for not standing up in unison against the bailouts. But the blame circles back to our financial oppressors and their use of propaganda and socio-economic control.
usefulcat 9y ago
Hypothesis: most people who commit crimes are (for whatever reason) focused far more on short term goals then long term goals when they commit the crime.
JamesBarney 9y ago
> I mostly agree that the record makes it harder to get a job and give up crime, but what about the deterrence factor? How many more would commit crimes knowing that it wouldn't have any impact on their ability to get a decent job right after serving some time? It's very little deterrence.(look up hyperbolic discounting) The average person is pretty bad at weighing consequences 10 years from now. And criminals I imagine are far worse than average.
- webXL 9y ago
  Yes, that's the average person, but for those who aren't average like the upper middle class kid wanting to get into a decent school, get a good job and not bring life-long shame to his family, I think it's fairly strong. Criminals definitely are worse at it, but I asked "how many more would commit crimes..." so that's not really relevant.
Brockenstein 9y ago
>Was it society's to begin with? Sure it does, in the sense that wealth only exists as a construct of society. If Bill Gates is on a deserted island it doesn't matter if he has $1 or $60 billion, because without society his money has no value. One could make an argument that if society has made you very wealthy you owe a lot to society. Personally I don't disagree. Of course from there it gets messier because everyone has opinions about how wealth is earned, how beholden the earners are to everyone else, how much of personal success is solely based on an individual's merits as opposed to support from society and other external sources. People want to minimize or maximize the particular points best serve their beliefs in this case. Hard to say who is the rightiest.
- webXL 9y ago
  > wealth only exists as a construct of society And so do property rights and pretty much any other kind of right. To begin with, the construct was there, but the wealth wasn't, and definitely not Bill Gates' wealth, which did not exist prior to the creation of Microsoft and the aggregate consumer surplus and capital it created.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Are you one of those people that thinks serving time is like a stay in a hotel with free food and cable TV?
- webXL 9y ago
  No, but if it were, would you be more likely to break the law? My point was about the total cost of the crime. e.g. if speeding tickets had no impact on insurance rates, don't you think fewer people would care about a $200 fine?

by webXL 9y ago

derekp7 9y ago

But is there really a deterrence factor? Most people don't commit crimes, due to a personal moral code. Those who have morals that don't get in the way of crime, just use the deterrence factor to find ways of not getting caught. Now what would really help, especially with recidivism, is to use the profit motive of prisons in a different way. First-time offenders-- the prison gets paid full price. If an offender returns to prison, the prison should get paid less, or not at all. That would encourage the private prison system to rehabilitate, and provide post-release re-integration assistance.

knodi123 9y ago
> That would encourage the private prison system to rehabilitate, and provide post-release re-integration assistance. Or to make tiers of service, where second-timers get a cheaper and more brutal experience which happens to be cheaper for the prison.
bluejekyll 9y ago
Alternatively, there could be a payment based directly on the outcome. Say there is a period in which the ex-con pays back 'restitution', probably based on the crime and length of sentence. During that period the ex-con owes some percentage of their paycheck. That is, this prison makes most of its money from the restitution payments. This would encourage prisons to also take an active role in finding ex-cons jobs afterwards, advocating for the highest possible pay (since they make more money), and also encourages them to train/teach the prisoner more to make them more likely to get a job as an ex-con. I think most victim advocates would be ok with this too as there would continue to be a penalty imposed for the crime.
shagie 9y ago
The private prisons have an interest in filling beds. That is where the money is. They don't get money by reducing recidivism, or providing job training, or providing preventative and maintenance health care (dentists to fill cavities so that the person doesn't need to get a root canal when they're released and then runs out of money on medical bills...) Whats more, like stadiums and cities (the city paying the difference if there isn't enough attendance), there are private prisons that have a "lockup quota" ( https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jul/31/report-finds-two-thirds-private-prison-contracts-include-lockup-quotas/ https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jul/31/report-find... | http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Criminal-Lockup-Quota,-In-the-Public-Interest,-9.13.pdf http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Criminal-Lockup-... ) where the state pays for the bed be it full or empty. This is part of the contract, and officials making short sighted deals that have the appearance of reducing costs while actually raising them in the long term is a oft heard refrain. I have difficulty believing that any private, for profit company would be working to negatively impact its bottom line. While it is possible that there are places where improvements in efficiency over government run facilities can be had, at the end of the day the duty of the company is to the shareholders ( CXW - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoreCivic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoreCivic , GEO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEO_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEO_Group ) rather than to the taxpayers of a state. https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/08/23/866325/0/en/Pomerantz-Law-Firm-Announces-the-Filing-of-a-Class-Action-against-Correction-Corporation-of-America-and-Certain-Officers-CXW.html https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/08/23/866325/0/e... > Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) CCA’s facilities lacked adequate safety and security standards and were less efficient at offering correctional services than the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) facilities; (ii) CCA’s rehabilitative services for inmates were less effective than those provided by BOP; (iii) consequently, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) was unlikely to renew and/or extend its contracts with CCA; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, CCA’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The profit motive for a private prison has shown in the past that in the interest in short term gains they will understaff and cut back on programs. Give them everyone who has been incarcerated before and they'll take the profits they've gotten and close that franchise. Furthermore, the lobbying efforts of private companies creates odd incentives in writing laws and negotiating contracts compared to facilities run and maintained by state or federal workers.

kakarot 9y ago

You're blaming the fed for something they did under metaphorical gunpoint. "Too big to fail" isn't just a saying, and ultimately if we are to blame someone other than our financial oppressors, the responsibility rests on the people for not standing up in unison against the bailouts. But the blame circles back to our financial oppressors and their use of propaganda and socio-economic control.

usefulcat 9y ago

Hypothesis: most people who commit crimes are (for whatever reason) focused far more on short term goals then long term goals when they commit the crime.

JamesBarney 9y ago

> I mostly agree that the record makes it harder to get a job and give up crime, but what about the deterrence factor? How many more would commit crimes knowing that it wouldn't have any impact on their ability to get a decent job right after serving some time? It's very little deterrence.(look up hyperbolic discounting) The average person is pretty bad at weighing consequences 10 years from now. And criminals I imagine are far worse than average.

webXL 9y ago
Yes, that's the average person, but for those who aren't average like the upper middle class kid wanting to get into a decent school, get a good job and not bring life-long shame to his family, I think it's fairly strong. Criminals definitely are worse at it, but I asked "how many more would commit crimes..." so that's not really relevant.

Brockenstein 9y ago

>Was it society's to begin with? Sure it does, in the sense that wealth only exists as a construct of society. If Bill Gates is on a deserted island it doesn't matter if he has $1 or $60 billion, because without society his money has no value. One could make an argument that if society has made you very wealthy you owe a lot to society. Personally I don't disagree. Of course from there it gets messier because everyone has opinions about how wealth is earned, how beholden the earners are to everyone else, how much of personal success is solely based on an individual's merits as opposed to support from society and other external sources. People want to minimize or maximize the particular points best serve their beliefs in this case. Hard to say who is the rightiest.

webXL 9y ago
> wealth only exists as a construct of society And so do property rights and pretty much any other kind of right. To begin with, the construct was there, but the wealth wasn't, and definitely not Bill Gates' wealth, which did not exist prior to the creation of Microsoft and the aggregate consumer surplus and capital it created.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Are you one of those people that thinks serving time is like a stay in a hotel with free food and cable TV?

webXL 9y ago
No, but if it were, would you be more likely to break the law? My point was about the total cost of the crime. e.g. if speeding tickets had no impact on insurance rates, don't you think fewer people would care about a $200 fine?