6 ms·

A prisoner costs the same in funding ($150k/year) as 10 school children ($15k/year). The two million inmates in america cost the same as educating 20 million ki

A prisoner costs the same in funding ($150k/year) as 10 school children ($15k/year). The two million inmates in america cost the same as educating 20 million kids -or increasing funding foe x number of kids who need it most-. Further questions: is the work mandatory? Or is it optional for those looking to shorten their sentence?

anonymoushn 4y ago
The work is optional. You can choose to be tortured instead.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  Wait a minute I thought that one was illegal too!
markovbot 4y ago
here i'll read the article for you > The ACLU also found that more than 76 percent of incarcerated workers surveyed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics say that “they are required to work or face additional punishments such as solitary confinement, denial of opportunities to reduce their sentence, and loss of family visitation.”
BeetleB 4y ago
> Further questions: is the work mandatory? This is addressed in the (short) article.
kolbe 4y ago
I'll pay you $150k to watch over 10 children for 7 hours a day or one violent and mentally ill murderer 24/7. What do choose?
- yywwbbn 4y ago
  $150k is the average and relatively few people in prison are mentally ill murderers. So something doesn’t seem to add up.
  - kolbe 4y ago
    So you choose one prisoner for 168 hours a week instead of 10 children for 35 hours? Homicide is not insignificant for state prisons (around 15%). Violent crime is over 50%. And mental illness is a huge problem in prisons. Would you care to take the chance of who you get in this? https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/56686e0e160000290094c0d9.jpeg?ops=scalefit_970_noupscale https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/56686e0e160000290094c0d...
    - corrral 4y ago
      Right, but that's not how that choice is framed in reality. The people watching prisoners in fact don't make anywhere near that much, because a lot more goes into the cost than wages of a single person watching a single prisoner 1 on 1. People still do the job. Teachers don't make $15,000/yr/student, either, for similar reasons. Your whole line of inquiry (I guess that's what it is?) doesn't make much sense to me. [EDIT] and that's beside the fact that it's irrelevant if you're looking at "what could we have bought for this instead". No bearing whatsoever.
      - kolbe 4y ago
        So, you're aware that when I as this question, all the costs associated with the job are in the number. You only take home what you get after costs. Facilities, staff, legal liability, etc. I'm not offering you a job, I'm offering you a contract to fulfill. You can do it at larger scale if you please (say 100 prisoners vs 1000 children for $15mm), go ahead. I guarantee that you could do neither profitably.
        corrral 4y ago
        I continue to have no idea what the point of this entire line of inquiry is.
        kolbe 4y ago
        The original claim was that we spend far too much on prisoners, and the rationale is that it costs 10x more per prisoner than per student without any regard to the actual costs and complications of doing each job. The fact is that prisoners are fundamentally that much more expensive to manage. And if society requires some violent and antisocial subset of the population to be removed from the rest of society, then this 10x cost is justified as far as I can tell. I'm offering the geniuses of Hacker News an opportunity to show that they can do it for less, since they seem to know better on this topic.
- i_am_toaster 4y ago
  So let me make sure we are clear on your position on this — you think 150k per prisoner sounds like a reasonable number? To me that number seems to be about a magnitude of order wrong. I bet you could do some back of the napkin math, multiply that number by 5, and it would still be way under that number. To me, when I see 150k, I don’t see a cost — I see a facade.
  - yywwbbn 4y ago
    Well yes, because it’s plainly incorrect eve California (which spends the most) ‘only’ spends around 100k per prisoner.
tsimionescu 4y ago
So yet another example of the state subsidizing corporations - pay 150k/year for an inmate, and force them to work for a company who gets to keep the profits.
enragedcacti 4y ago
You've presented an extremely great rationale for why we should eliminate additional incentives to incarcerate people. you know, incentives like allowing the prison to profit off of slave labor.
- annexrichmond 4y ago
  Is there any data on how much these prisons are making from such labor? Also, this term "for profit" is thrown around a lot, suggesting there are perverse incentives. That seems true, but I imagine government-run prisons are prone to corruption as well. If we want such private prisons to improve is it possible to pass legislation for what the minimum standards should be and regulations for ensuring they are met?
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> A prisoner costs the same in funding ($150k/year) as 10 school children ($15k/year). The two million inmates in america cost the same as educating 20 million kids -or increasing funding foe x number of kids who need it most-. But there is no evidence that increasing educational funding for children will have any positive effect. The correlation between educational funding and educational outcomes in the US is already negative.

anonymoushn 4y ago

The work is optional. You can choose to be tortured instead.

the_only_law 4y ago
Wait a minute I thought that one was illegal too!

markovbot 4y ago

here i'll read the article for you > The ACLU also found that more than 76 percent of incarcerated workers surveyed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics say that “they are required to work or face additional punishments such as solitary confinement, denial of opportunities to reduce their sentence, and loss of family visitation.”

BeetleB 4y ago

> Further questions: is the work mandatory? This is addressed in the (short) article.

kolbe 4y ago

I'll pay you $150k to watch over 10 children for 7 hours a day or one violent and mentally ill murderer 24/7. What do choose?

yywwbbn 4y ago
$150k is the average and relatively few people in prison are mentally ill murderers. So something doesn’t seem to add up.
- kolbe 4y ago
  So you choose one prisoner for 168 hours a week instead of 10 children for 35 hours? Homicide is not insignificant for state prisons (around 15%). Violent crime is over 50%. And mental illness is a huge problem in prisons. Would you care to take the chance of who you get in this? https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/56686e0e160000290094c0d9.jpeg?ops=scalefit_970_noupscale https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/56686e0e160000290094c0d...
  - corrral 4y ago
    Right, but that's not how that choice is framed in reality. The people watching prisoners in fact don't make anywhere near that much, because a lot more goes into the cost than wages of a single person watching a single prisoner 1 on 1. People still do the job. Teachers don't make $15,000/yr/student, either, for similar reasons. Your whole line of inquiry (I guess that's what it is?) doesn't make much sense to me. [EDIT] and that's beside the fact that it's irrelevant if you're looking at "what could we have bought for this instead". No bearing whatsoever.
    - kolbe 4y ago
      So, you're aware that when I as this question, all the costs associated with the job are in the number. You only take home what you get after costs. Facilities, staff, legal liability, etc. I'm not offering you a job, I'm offering you a contract to fulfill. You can do it at larger scale if you please (say 100 prisoners vs 1000 children for $15mm), go ahead. I guarantee that you could do neither profitably.
      - corrral 4y ago
        I continue to have no idea what the point of this entire line of inquiry is.
        kolbe 4y ago
        The original claim was that we spend far too much on prisoners, and the rationale is that it costs 10x more per prisoner than per student without any regard to the actual costs and complications of doing each job. The fact is that prisoners are fundamentally that much more expensive to manage. And if society requires some violent and antisocial subset of the population to be removed from the rest of society, then this 10x cost is justified as far as I can tell. I'm offering the geniuses of Hacker News an opportunity to show that they can do it for less, since they seem to know better on this topic.
i_am_toaster 4y ago
So let me make sure we are clear on your position on this — you think 150k per prisoner sounds like a reasonable number? To me that number seems to be about a magnitude of order wrong. I bet you could do some back of the napkin math, multiply that number by 5, and it would still be way under that number. To me, when I see 150k, I don’t see a cost — I see a facade.
- yywwbbn 4y ago
  Well yes, because it’s plainly incorrect eve California (which spends the most) ‘only’ spends around 100k per prisoner.

tsimionescu 4y ago

So yet another example of the state subsidizing corporations - pay 150k/year for an inmate, and force them to work for a company who gets to keep the profits.

enragedcacti 4y ago

You've presented an extremely great rationale for why we should eliminate additional incentives to incarcerate people. you know, incentives like allowing the prison to profit off of slave labor.

annexrichmond 4y ago
Is there any data on how much these prisons are making from such labor? Also, this term "for profit" is thrown around a lot, suggesting there are perverse incentives. That seems true, but I imagine government-run prisons are prone to corruption as well. If we want such private prisons to improve is it possible to pass legislation for what the minimum standards should be and regulations for ensuring they are met?

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> A prisoner costs the same in funding ($150k/year) as 10 school children ($15k/year). The two million inmates in america cost the same as educating 20 million kids -or increasing funding foe x number of kids who need it most-. But there is no evidence that increasing educational funding for children will have any positive effect. The correlation between educational funding and educational outcomes in the US is already negative.