5 ms·

You're absolutely right. Looking for a solution here, the central problem with the US prison system seems to be the incentive structure. Private prisons are pa

You're absolutely right. Looking for a solution here, the central problem with the US prison system seems to be the incentive structure. Private prisons are paid based on how many inmates they have. Prisons are therefore incentivized to keep people as long as possible, and ensure that if a convict is ever released, that person commits another crime quickly and winds up back in prison. Instead, what if the state paid prisons a one-time fee for accepting convicts (the amount would vary depending on the type of crime committed), and then penalized the prisons heavily for any recidivism after release? Prisons would be incentivized to rehabilitate and free the prisoner as quickly as possible (since every additional day in prison costs them money) while minimizing the chance of that prisoner committing another crime when released. You'd see prisons offer education opportunities, vocational training, valuable job programs, relocation to other areas, ongoing therapy, and living conditions befitting a human being to reduce recidivism.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bmmayer1 9y ago
Fewer than 10% of prisoners are held in private prisons, so how are private prisons the 'central problem' with the US prison system?
- hellcow 9y ago
  You misunderstood my point. Both government-run and privately owned prisons are paid (or funded) based on how many inmates they have in custody. I'm suggesting that private prisons could be solution to the problem if we change their incentive structure.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    Instead, what if the state paid prisons a one-time fee for accepting convicts (the amount would vary depending on the type of crime committed), and then penalized the prisons heavily for any recidivism after release? So you are proposing paying private prisons up front and then punishing them potentially ten to twenty years later. That doesn't sound workable politically nor does it sound like a good incentive structure.
    - Sundiata 9y ago
      I don't have the statistics here but it would be interesting to see what percentage of prisoners were serving 5+ years, maybe the ratio of prisoners serving shorter sentences would make this kind of solution more plausible.
  - bmmayer1 9y ago
    Got it, your point seemed only mention private prisons so I was confused. Yes, it would be interesting to see if market forces could be used to improve outcomes. It does seem that we politically prefer punishment to rehabilitation though, and the incentives are aligned accordingly...
  - ImSkeptical 9y ago
    I've always thought an easy solution would be to pay private prisons based on recidivism. e.g. The government gives twenty percent of all future tax income from the inmate to the prison company - until the inmate is incarcerated again. The government gains an incentive not to jail people unnecessarily (loss of revenue). Prisons get an incentive to rehabilitate and educate.
  - LordKano 9y ago
    Overall, I agree with you. Mass incarceration is largely about money. Also, prisoners count towards the population of where the prison is located at census time. It allows mostly white, rural locations to increase their minority representation at census time, that's the kind of thing that's taken into consideration when government assistance is being handed out. Additionally, this can help when apportioning congressional districts. Hundreds or thousands of residents who can't vote are a great reward for congresspersons who can bring new prisons to their districts.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Are you familiar with the phrase 'thin end of the wedge'? The private prisons are to many people an unacceptable moral ill that treats incarceration as a source of profit, and whose continued existence provides cover for other institutional abuses.
refurb 9y ago
Private prisons are a minuscule percentage of all incarcerated Americans.
- loteck 9y ago
  18% of federal inmates. 75% of immigration inmates. Miniscule?
  - refurb 9y ago
    Federal prisoners are about 10% of all inmates. So yes, I would call 1.8% of federal inmates in private prisons miniscule.
lostlogin 9y ago
> Instead, what if the state paid prisons a one-time fee for accepting convicts I might to too cynical but I'm guessing that more prisoners would mysteriously die.
- ryandrake 9y ago
  I don't think that is cynical at all. Such an incentive structure + the general public's lack of interest in the human rights of prisoners, would guarantee that outcome.
  - hellcow 9y ago
    Then could we make a small change to the incentive structure such that this becomes a non-issue? For instance, could the government pay out the fee over 10 or 20 years (perhaps paying it in full on release), and stop future payments if the prisoner dies while in custody?
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      You'll just end up playing whack-a-mole, only the moles getting whacked will be real people being treated unjustly. This is why I'm a deontologist. The pursuit of maximal utility is a fine thing, but people tend to vastly overestimate their powers of foresight and where that overestimation causes human suffering it's better avoided altogether. We already have comparative examples of systems that seem to work vastly better than our without being so radically different as to be beyond analysis, so I don't see why you're so desperate to preserve the possibility of a profit opportunity here.
    - mgkimsal 9y ago
      why not let prisoners rate the prison, and withhold payments for poor reviews?
      - lostlogin 9y ago
        In many countries voters would vote in governments that promised to achieve 1 star prison ratings from prisoners. While prisoners would be unlikely to rate their prison highly, perhaps reformed prisoners are slightly more likely to do so?
cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
I think you're being a little naive here. If you could wave a magic wand and make it so private prisons got a one-time fee for accepting convicts then I don't think they would invest more in preventing recidivism. What would likely happen is that private prisons would spend even less on each inmate, doing the accounting to determine how much they have to cut from what they already spend to account for the amount of their fees if a prisoner reoffends. The already ridiculous cost of the prison phone system would skyrocket. Fees assessed to visitors would be increased or added. The cost of items in the commissary would go up. The private prisons would bump fees associated with being released from prison. Private prisons would also take on more forced labor contracts to cover the difference and pay the inmates even less for their time. Further, you'll see a spike in prosecutions for in-prison crimes, causing a convict to be convicted on a new charge and more money being sent to the private prison to cover the sentencing on the new charge. So you're going to make the indefinite detention problem even worse - before, inmates got to leave. Now they may never get to leave. In short, this is likely only a viable solution if you can force private prison owners to act morally.
- deegles 9y ago
  Private prisons need to be regulated so heavily that they'll effectively cease to be private, or not exist at all IMO.
- loa_in_ 9y ago
  You seem to have missed the part when he writes about high penalization of recidivism.
  - cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
    Penalties would only be levied after an inmate actually got out of prison, and there is ample time for the prison to use the inmate for slave labor to more than offset whatever penalties you set. Also expect for the corrections officers unions and police and sheriffs groups to start lobbying for mandatory life sentences because if there's one way to prevent recidivism it's to never actually release the prisoner.
pnathan 9y ago
Private prisons have serious issues, but public ones have issues as well; often they are underfunded, which allowed the private company world to get involved to offer a service for cheaper costs. I would suggest the solution is properly around the question of the willingness of the US taxpayer to adequately fund the government services.
- thatswrong0 9y ago
  And public prisons still have tons of private interests involved in their running (contractors, etc.). So no prison is truly public.
- aaron_m04 9y ago
  US taxpayer here. I'm happy to fund prisoner rehabilitation, but I can't fund that without also funding an out of control military and a war on drugs. So, as a whole, I try to avoid taxes wherever I legally can.
  - pnathan 9y ago
    Well, I can confidently say that your activities are executing a tragedy of the commons. Sorry.
Clubber 9y ago
Private prisons and the incentive for profit is a concern. What is more of a concern, and what leads to much more incarceration is the ambition of prosecutors to rack up convictions, and the embarrassment that is caused if someone discovers a conviction overturned. That's inventive to keep people in prison and don't bother asking if maybe you've got the wrong guy (that's the defense's problem). Also, in many municipalities, the public defenders are very lightly funded, to the degree where one defender works 100 cases at at time. It is in no way a fair trial in any resemblance to what the constitution envisioned. That's the corruption, that's the stink in the system.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

bmmayer1 9y ago

Fewer than 10% of prisoners are held in private prisons, so how are private prisons the 'central problem' with the US prison system?

hellcow 9y ago
You misunderstood my point. Both government-run and privately owned prisons are paid (or funded) based on how many inmates they have in custody. I'm suggesting that private prisons could be solution to the problem if we change their incentive structure.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Instead, what if the state paid prisons a one-time fee for accepting convicts (the amount would vary depending on the type of crime committed), and then penalized the prisons heavily for any recidivism after release? So you are proposing paying private prisons up front and then punishing them potentially ten to twenty years later. That doesn't sound workable politically nor does it sound like a good incentive structure.
  - Sundiata 9y ago
    I don't have the statistics here but it would be interesting to see what percentage of prisoners were serving 5+ years, maybe the ratio of prisoners serving shorter sentences would make this kind of solution more plausible.
- bmmayer1 9y ago
  Got it, your point seemed only mention private prisons so I was confused. Yes, it would be interesting to see if market forces could be used to improve outcomes. It does seem that we politically prefer punishment to rehabilitation though, and the incentives are aligned accordingly...
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  I've always thought an easy solution would be to pay private prisons based on recidivism. e.g. The government gives twenty percent of all future tax income from the inmate to the prison company - until the inmate is incarcerated again. The government gains an incentive not to jail people unnecessarily (loss of revenue). Prisons get an incentive to rehabilitate and educate.
- LordKano 9y ago
  Overall, I agree with you. Mass incarceration is largely about money. Also, prisoners count towards the population of where the prison is located at census time. It allows mostly white, rural locations to increase their minority representation at census time, that's the kind of thing that's taken into consideration when government assistance is being handed out. Additionally, this can help when apportioning congressional districts. Hundreds or thousands of residents who can't vote are a great reward for congresspersons who can bring new prisons to their districts.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Are you familiar with the phrase 'thin end of the wedge'? The private prisons are to many people an unacceptable moral ill that treats incarceration as a source of profit, and whose continued existence provides cover for other institutional abuses.

refurb 9y ago

Private prisons are a minuscule percentage of all incarcerated Americans.

loteck 9y ago
18% of federal inmates. 75% of immigration inmates. Miniscule?
- refurb 9y ago
  Federal prisoners are about 10% of all inmates. So yes, I would call 1.8% of federal inmates in private prisons miniscule.

lostlogin 9y ago

> Instead, what if the state paid prisons a one-time fee for accepting convicts I might to too cynical but I'm guessing that more prisoners would mysteriously die.

ryandrake 9y ago
I don't think that is cynical at all. Such an incentive structure + the general public's lack of interest in the human rights of prisoners, would guarantee that outcome.
- hellcow 9y ago
  Then could we make a small change to the incentive structure such that this becomes a non-issue? For instance, could the government pay out the fee over 10 or 20 years (perhaps paying it in full on release), and stop future payments if the prisoner dies while in custody?
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    You'll just end up playing whack-a-mole, only the moles getting whacked will be real people being treated unjustly. This is why I'm a deontologist. The pursuit of maximal utility is a fine thing, but people tend to vastly overestimate their powers of foresight and where that overestimation causes human suffering it's better avoided altogether. We already have comparative examples of systems that seem to work vastly better than our without being so radically different as to be beyond analysis, so I don't see why you're so desperate to preserve the possibility of a profit opportunity here.
  - mgkimsal 9y ago
    why not let prisoners rate the prison, and withhold payments for poor reviews?
    - lostlogin 9y ago
      In many countries voters would vote in governments that promised to achieve 1 star prison ratings from prisoners. While prisoners would be unlikely to rate their prison highly, perhaps reformed prisoners are slightly more likely to do so?

cuckcuckspruce 9y ago

I think you're being a little naive here. If you could wave a magic wand and make it so private prisons got a one-time fee for accepting convicts then I don't think they would invest more in preventing recidivism. What would likely happen is that private prisons would spend even less on each inmate, doing the accounting to determine how much they have to cut from what they already spend to account for the amount of their fees if a prisoner reoffends. The already ridiculous cost of the prison phone system would skyrocket. Fees assessed to visitors would be increased or added. The cost of items in the commissary would go up. The private prisons would bump fees associated with being released from prison. Private prisons would also take on more forced labor contracts to cover the difference and pay the inmates even less for their time. Further, you'll see a spike in prosecutions for in-prison crimes, causing a convict to be convicted on a new charge and more money being sent to the private prison to cover the sentencing on the new charge. So you're going to make the indefinite detention problem even worse - before, inmates got to leave. Now they may never get to leave. In short, this is likely only a viable solution if you can force private prison owners to act morally.

deegles 9y ago
Private prisons need to be regulated so heavily that they'll effectively cease to be private, or not exist at all IMO.
loa_in_ 9y ago
You seem to have missed the part when he writes about high penalization of recidivism.
- cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
  Penalties would only be levied after an inmate actually got out of prison, and there is ample time for the prison to use the inmate for slave labor to more than offset whatever penalties you set. Also expect for the corrections officers unions and police and sheriffs groups to start lobbying for mandatory life sentences because if there's one way to prevent recidivism it's to never actually release the prisoner.

pnathan 9y ago

Private prisons have serious issues, but public ones have issues as well; often they are underfunded, which allowed the private company world to get involved to offer a service for cheaper costs. I would suggest the solution is properly around the question of the willingness of the US taxpayer to adequately fund the government services.

thatswrong0 9y ago
And public prisons still have tons of private interests involved in their running (contractors, etc.). So no prison is truly public.
aaron_m04 9y ago
US taxpayer here. I'm happy to fund prisoner rehabilitation, but I can't fund that without also funding an out of control military and a war on drugs. So, as a whole, I try to avoid taxes wherever I legally can.
- pnathan 9y ago
  Well, I can confidently say that your activities are executing a tragedy of the commons. Sorry.

Clubber 9y ago

Private prisons and the incentive for profit is a concern. What is more of a concern, and what leads to much more incarceration is the ambition of prosecutors to rack up convictions, and the embarrassment that is caused if someone discovers a conviction overturned. That's inventive to keep people in prison and don't bother asking if maybe you've got the wrong guy (that's the defense's problem). Also, in many municipalities, the public defenders are very lightly funded, to the degree where one defender works 100 cases at at time. It is in no way a fair trial in any resemblance to what the constitution envisioned. That's the corruption, that's the stink in the system.