13 ms·

I guess this is nice, but I think the question of "private prisons" can become a bit of a distraction. Maybe they make things worse, but they're not the root of

I guess this is nice, but I think the question of "private prisons" can become a bit of a distraction. Maybe they make things worse, but they're not the root of our problems. Consider that California state prisons were trying to save money by illegally sterilizing inmates as recently as 2010. Here's a great headline to consider: "California Bans Sterilization of Female Inmates Without Consent". 2013. In the United States. Two thousand and god damn thirteen. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/california-bans-sterilization-female-inmates-without-consent-n212256 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/california-bans... other links. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/07/09/200444613/californias-prison-sterilizations-reportedly-echoes-eugenics-era https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/07/09/200444613... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/california-female-prisoner-sterilization https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/califo...

noworriesnate 6y ago
Wow that is awful. I didn't realize this was happening. Here's a link: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/california-bans-sterilization-female-inmates-without-consent-n212256 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/california-bans... Also, to your point, private prisons only account for 8.41% of the prison population in the U.S. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison#United_States
- adventured 6y ago
  During the 30-35 years of the rapid prison population expansion, private prisons represented an even smaller portion of the US prison population, closer to 2-3% averaged. Their expansion in market share has occurred at a time when the US prison population has been shrinking, but that's a wildly inconvenient fact. It was government prisons nearly all of those people were put into during the prime years of the massive drug war, not private prisons. Commenters always and without exception intentionally ignore that fact, for obvious reasons (implodes the propaganda). I'm entirely against private prisons, however it's comical the lengths people will go to, to pretend it wasn't government prisons those millions of people were put into. The prison boom was a government prison boom. The prison industrial complex was a government effort almost exclusively. The drug war was a government effort. The cops (government) benefitted, the police unions benefitted, the government contractors benefitted, the politicians benefitted (jobs and construction in their districts, along with more tax money and government spending).
  - bluntfang 6y ago
    >Their expansion in market share has occurred at a time when the US prison population has been shrinking, but that's a wildly inconvenient fact. Are you making the claim that private prisons reduce total inmates? If not, this claim, truth or not, is irrelevant.
thebean11 6y ago
I disagree, private prisons are a moral hazard by nature. Pointing out a separate failure by state prisons is a straw man I think.
- eagsalazar2 6y ago
  It's not a straw man, it is fact. Parent post wasn't saying this was no big deal, just pointing out correctly that there are more fundamental issues in play - like qualified immunity and the cultural racist cancers we suffer from that demonize poor and brown people and fetishize the military and police. Private prisons are awful. Any sane ethical person must agree with that. But calling out that it isn't the root of the issue is far from a straw man. It is a rallying call that the fight is far from over (!!)
  - newacct583 6y ago
    A strawman argument can be true, but still be a strawman. The essential point is that it's a distraction. Saying "we have to fix state prisons too!" is not an argument against "private prisons are a moral hazard". We should do both!
    - dahfizz 6y ago
      NIT: I think you mean red herring. A red herring fallacy is misdirection with irrelevant information. A straw man is a type of red herring which specifically involves misrepresenting the original argument. https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-difference-between-a-red-herring-and-straw-man-fallacy https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-difference-betwee...
    - drdeca 6y ago
      A strawman is when you misrepresent an opposing position or argument to make it appear weaker than it is, and argue against the weak version. Fighting an opponent made of straw which was created in order to be defeated. (Similarly, a weakman is when you seek out someone who genuinely holds a weak (easier to argue against) version of the position you wish to push against, argue against this weak version, and act as if you have argued against the stronger versions. Neither of these appear to be what has been done here.
rozab 6y ago
That sounds to me like a symptom of state prisons being run like private prisons.
- anlk1000 6y ago
  No, it is a symptom of governments being greedy, cruel, self serving, wasteful and criminal.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
>illegally Presumably illegal. There wasn't a state law banning it, and Buck vs. Bell technically still stands allowing state run compulsory sterilization.
- corty 6y ago
  There would still be various human rights treaties banning stuff like that.
  - Thlom 6y ago
    Have the USA even ratified those?
    - corty 6y ago
      Maybe not, but the USA have invaded countries that also didn't ratify human rights conventions and executed people as war criminals for human rights violations. So the USA seem to think they do apply. Human rights are generally thought to apply universally, not only in countries that agree.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Those US invasions were usually illegal under international law, contained the US committing war crimes and not being punished, and led to the US passing a law allowing "all means necessary" to bring about the release of anyone associated with the US government being held by a country/group at request of the ICC. Human rights have never applied universally, the lack of any Nuremberg trial against the Allies made that clear.
gizmo686 6y ago
Am I missing something here? How can sterilizations save money when prisons are already gender segragated? Unless they are saying that it is inpractical to have male prison guards/staff not have sex with the inmates.
- jobigoud 6y ago
  I'm not sure but I think inmates can have special "conjugal visits" where sex with a visitor is allowed. I assume that when a female inmate has a baby, she keeps it with her until the child reaches a certain age like 3 years old or something, maybe with special accommodations. This is based on a video I saw about Mexican prisons but I assume it could be the same in the US.
  - notRobot 6y ago
    > This is based on a documentary about Mexican prisons but I assume it could be the same in the US. Assuming stuff like this isn't a good idea. They're completely different countries.
    - jobigoud 6y ago
      I double checked and it's also the case in several US states. Sex during conjugal visits and prison nurseries. The rules vary, sometimes the mother must be pregnant when entering custody to be eligible, but not always. The duration of the child stay in the prison varies as well, between a month to 30 months.
- winstonewert 6y ago
  Perhaps the theory is that the children born to criminals will likely be criminals as well, thus by preventing those children from being born there will be long-term cost savings? On the other hand, I have a hard time seeing someone being both that diabolical and long-term in mindset.
ogre_codes 6y ago
Private prisons have a financial incentive to detain inmates for as long as possible. The prison has some input into when a detainee is released (good behavior, etc) and private prisons have been observed abusing this power. Private prisons also have incentives to find ways to cut costs and often do so in ways which harm detainees. Private prisons also have incentive to lobby for longer mandatory prison terms regardless of whether it makes sense for the crime or not. Tons of conflict of interest in private prisons which are in addition to the potential abuses associated with public prisons.
- Gustomaximus 6y ago
  It doesnt have to be. Why don't they do something like pay private prisons the bare minimum per diem but then offer a trailing commission for every year an ex-con is out of jail past a certain date. Do the statistics for average time to return to prison, and pay them a bonus every year a prisoner is over that average date for 10 years type thing. So jails make little money for the incarceration but earn profits from the rehabilitation.
  - aj7 6y ago
    Because profits are maximized by the current practices.
    - dahfizz 6y ago
      Not if you change the way that prisons make money, with is what your parent is talking about...
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    What could also make sense is paying the prison a lump sum for the convict instead of a per diem. This changes the incentive structure from keeping people locked up as long as possible to rehabilitating and releasing them as fast as possible.
    - Traster 6y ago
staycoolboy 6y ago
That's insane. I didn't know that was happening. I lived in CA for 20 years. I think banning for-profit prisons is a good first step. Next stop: stuff like this! Thanks for the enlightenment.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I guess this is nice, but I think the question of "private prisons" can become a bit of a distraction. Sure, it's neither the main problem nor the main area of recent reform, either in corrections specifically or law enforcement more generally, in California.
thephyber 6y ago
> Maybe they make things worse, but they're not the root of our problems. I have a hard time believing there are a few "root" problems. We got where we are because the entire incentive+accountability structure was completely skewed for decades. IMHO, there are thousands of "root" issues at this point, to the point where the word "root" is moot.
wtvanhest 6y ago
Private prisons are an easy scapegoat to a much larger problem. In my opinion ending private prisons just removes a tool that politicians can use to avoid responsibility, so in that way, ending their practice is net good. There are 2 problems with prisons in the United States: 1) There are way too many people in US prisons. We have the highest prison population in the world by percentage and total numbers of any country. That is a metric you don't want to win at. 2) The conditions are absolutely horrifying. To solve the first problem, you need to do obvious things like eliminate mandatory minimums. But you also need to do less obvious things like reduce overall sentencing across all crimes. You also need to reduce or eliminate prison sentences for most non-violent offenders. We also need to put in place better negotiating power for accused people so that the innocent don't have to take plea bargains (basically we need more fair trials). The second problem can be solved in a number of ways, but the big thing that is missing is oversight from groups unrelated to the prison who are responsible for metrics. Imagine you have centralized offices where people watch video in prisons remotely and bring charges against people on this inside or implement policies. Those people would have to be completely isolated from the guards/wardens etc. of those prisons. Imagine they sit in a central office in Houston or whatever and watch prisons in Montana, California etc. What prisons need is a set of eyes that can be truly impartial. It is great that the discussion are becoming mainstream, but we have so far to go in this country. Its truly astounding.

noworriesnate 6y ago

Wow that is awful. I didn't realize this was happening. Here's a link: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/california-bans-sterilization-female-inmates-without-consent-n212256 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/california-bans... Also, to your point, private prisons only account for 8.41% of the prison population in the U.S. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison#United_States

adventured 6y ago
During the 30-35 years of the rapid prison population expansion, private prisons represented an even smaller portion of the US prison population, closer to 2-3% averaged. Their expansion in market share has occurred at a time when the US prison population has been shrinking, but that's a wildly inconvenient fact. It was government prisons nearly all of those people were put into during the prime years of the massive drug war, not private prisons. Commenters always and without exception intentionally ignore that fact, for obvious reasons (implodes the propaganda). I'm entirely against private prisons, however it's comical the lengths people will go to, to pretend it wasn't government prisons those millions of people were put into. The prison boom was a government prison boom. The prison industrial complex was a government effort almost exclusively. The drug war was a government effort. The cops (government) benefitted, the police unions benefitted, the government contractors benefitted, the politicians benefitted (jobs and construction in their districts, along with more tax money and government spending).
- bluntfang 6y ago
  >Their expansion in market share has occurred at a time when the US prison population has been shrinking, but that's a wildly inconvenient fact. Are you making the claim that private prisons reduce total inmates? If not, this claim, truth or not, is irrelevant.

thebean11 6y ago

I disagree, private prisons are a moral hazard by nature. Pointing out a separate failure by state prisons is a straw man I think.

eagsalazar2 6y ago
It's not a straw man, it is fact. Parent post wasn't saying this was no big deal, just pointing out correctly that there are more fundamental issues in play - like qualified immunity and the cultural racist cancers we suffer from that demonize poor and brown people and fetishize the military and police. Private prisons are awful. Any sane ethical person must agree with that. But calling out that it isn't the root of the issue is far from a straw man. It is a rallying call that the fight is far from over (!!)
- newacct583 6y ago
  A strawman argument can be true, but still be a strawman. The essential point is that it's a distraction. Saying "we have to fix state prisons too!" is not an argument against "private prisons are a moral hazard". We should do both!
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    NIT: I think you mean red herring. A red herring fallacy is misdirection with irrelevant information. A straw man is a type of red herring which specifically involves misrepresenting the original argument. https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-difference-between-a-red-herring-and-straw-man-fallacy https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-difference-betwee...
  - drdeca 6y ago
    A strawman is when you misrepresent an opposing position or argument to make it appear weaker than it is, and argue against the weak version. Fighting an opponent made of straw which was created in order to be defeated. (Similarly, a weakman is when you seek out someone who genuinely holds a weak (easier to argue against) version of the position you wish to push against, argue against this weak version, and act as if you have argued against the stronger versions. Neither of these appear to be what has been done here.

rozab 6y ago

That sounds to me like a symptom of state prisons being run like private prisons.

anlk1000 6y ago
No, it is a symptom of governments being greedy, cruel, self serving, wasteful and criminal.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>illegally Presumably illegal. There wasn't a state law banning it, and Buck vs. Bell technically still stands allowing state run compulsory sterilization.

corty 6y ago
There would still be various human rights treaties banning stuff like that.
- Thlom 6y ago
  Have the USA even ratified those?
  - corty 6y ago
    Maybe not, but the USA have invaded countries that also didn't ratify human rights conventions and executed people as war criminals for human rights violations. So the USA seem to think they do apply. Human rights are generally thought to apply universally, not only in countries that agree.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      Those US invasions were usually illegal under international law, contained the US committing war crimes and not being punished, and led to the US passing a law allowing "all means necessary" to bring about the release of anyone associated with the US government being held by a country/group at request of the ICC. Human rights have never applied universally, the lack of any Nuremberg trial against the Allies made that clear.

gizmo686 6y ago

Am I missing something here? How can sterilizations save money when prisons are already gender segragated? Unless they are saying that it is inpractical to have male prison guards/staff not have sex with the inmates.

jobigoud 6y ago
I'm not sure but I think inmates can have special "conjugal visits" where sex with a visitor is allowed. I assume that when a female inmate has a baby, she keeps it with her until the child reaches a certain age like 3 years old or something, maybe with special accommodations. This is based on a video I saw about Mexican prisons but I assume it could be the same in the US.
- notRobot 6y ago
  > This is based on a documentary about Mexican prisons but I assume it could be the same in the US. Assuming stuff like this isn't a good idea. They're completely different countries.
  - jobigoud 6y ago
    I double checked and it's also the case in several US states. Sex during conjugal visits and prison nurseries. The rules vary, sometimes the mother must be pregnant when entering custody to be eligible, but not always. The duration of the child stay in the prison varies as well, between a month to 30 months.
winstonewert 6y ago
Perhaps the theory is that the children born to criminals will likely be criminals as well, thus by preventing those children from being born there will be long-term cost savings? On the other hand, I have a hard time seeing someone being both that diabolical and long-term in mindset.

ogre_codes 6y ago

Private prisons have a financial incentive to detain inmates for as long as possible. The prison has some input into when a detainee is released (good behavior, etc) and private prisons have been observed abusing this power. Private prisons also have incentives to find ways to cut costs and often do so in ways which harm detainees. Private prisons also have incentive to lobby for longer mandatory prison terms regardless of whether it makes sense for the crime or not. Tons of conflict of interest in private prisons which are in addition to the potential abuses associated with public prisons.

Gustomaximus 6y ago
It doesnt have to be. Why don't they do something like pay private prisons the bare minimum per diem but then offer a trailing commission for every year an ex-con is out of jail past a certain date. Do the statistics for average time to return to prison, and pay them a bonus every year a prisoner is over that average date for 10 years type thing. So jails make little money for the incarceration but earn profits from the rehabilitation.
- aj7 6y ago
  Because profits are maximized by the current practices.
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    Not if you change the way that prisons make money, with is what your parent is talking about...
- dahfizz 6y ago
  What could also make sense is paying the prison a lump sum for the convict instead of a per diem. This changes the incentive structure from keeping people locked up as long as possible to rehabilitating and releasing them as fast as possible.
  - Traster 6y ago

staycoolboy 6y ago

That's insane. I didn't know that was happening. I lived in CA for 20 years. I think banning for-profit prisons is a good first step. Next stop: stuff like this! Thanks for the enlightenment.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I guess this is nice, but I think the question of "private prisons" can become a bit of a distraction. Sure, it's neither the main problem nor the main area of recent reform, either in corrections specifically or law enforcement more generally, in California.

thephyber 6y ago

> Maybe they make things worse, but they're not the root of our problems. I have a hard time believing there are a few "root" problems. We got where we are because the entire incentive+accountability structure was completely skewed for decades. IMHO, there are thousands of "root" issues at this point, to the point where the word "root" is moot.

wtvanhest 6y ago

Private prisons are an easy scapegoat to a much larger problem. In my opinion ending private prisons just removes a tool that politicians can use to avoid responsibility, so in that way, ending their practice is net good. There are 2 problems with prisons in the United States: 1) There are way too many people in US prisons. We have the highest prison population in the world by percentage and total numbers of any country. That is a metric you don't want to win at. 2) The conditions are absolutely horrifying. To solve the first problem, you need to do obvious things like eliminate mandatory minimums. But you also need to do less obvious things like reduce overall sentencing across all crimes. You also need to reduce or eliminate prison sentences for most non-violent offenders. We also need to put in place better negotiating power for accused people so that the innocent don't have to take plea bargains (basically we need more fair trials). The second problem can be solved in a number of ways, but the big thing that is missing is oversight from groups unrelated to the prison who are responsible for metrics. Imagine you have centralized offices where people watch video in prisons remotely and bring charges against people on this inside or implement policies. Those people would have to be completely isolated from the guards/wardens etc. of those prisons. Imagine they sit in a central office in Houston or whatever and watch prisons in Montana, California etc. What prisons need is a set of eyes that can be truly impartial. It is great that the discussion are becoming mainstream, but we have so far to go in this country. Its truly astounding.