3 ms·

> At least for that there's a pretty simple non-nefarious explanation. The state wants to outsource their prisons/jails to some private entity. They agree to pa

> At least for that there's a pretty simple non-nefarious explanation. The state wants to outsource their prisons/jails to some private entity. They agree to pay the private entity per prisoner housed. That sounds pretty nefarious to me because the state has a duty of care for its citizens - of which this is a clear and flagrant abdication. > I haven't seen the actual minimum occupancy clauses, but realistically speaking they probably involve the state paying for the minimum occupancy even if actual prisoners are less (eg. if minimum occupancy is 800 prisoners but actual occupancy is 700, they still pay for 800 prisoners). It's not like the state has to come up with 100 extra prisoners to meet their obligations. Probably worth not speculating. [1] At the end of the day this is the same thing - the state should be paying less when there's less crime. It should be incentivized to stop crime from happening in the first place. It should be spending that money not on guaranteeing profits for corporations but instead on programs that reduce criminality. The state should feel the burden of higher criminality and reap the reward of lowering it. [1] 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-...

gruez 4y ago
>That sounds pretty nefarious to me because the state has a duty of care for its citizens - of which this is a clear and flagrant abdication. Which part of it constitutes "a clear and flagrant abdication"? >At the end of the day this is the same thing - the state should be paying less when there's less crime. It should be incentivized to stop crime from happening in the first place. >It should be spending that money not on guaranteeing profits for corporations but instead on programs that reduce criminality. This ignores the basic economic reality that the upfront investment needs to be paid somehow. Without it, you end up with too little prison capacity and overcrowded prisons, which is also inhumane. The alternatives aren't much better: 1. if the upfront investment is funded by the taxpayer, and it ends up getting underutilized, the taxpayer is still on the hook for the opportunity cost of the investment 2. if prisons are privatized but without guarantees, the state will need to pay more to make up for the uncertainly, leaving the taxpayers on the hook.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  It's simpler just to make the privately run prisons illegal so as to avoid any moral hazards. If the facility is under utilized less investment will be needed in the future and conditions can be improved for existing inmates.
  - gruez 4y ago
    > It's simpler just to make the privately run prisons illegal so as to avoid any moral hazards. What are the moral hazards here? The people running the prisons aren't the ones sentencing/convicting criminals. >If the facility is under utilized less investment will be needed in the future and conditions can be improved for existing inmates. What's the difference between wasting money because the state didn't meet the minimum inmate quota, and wasting money because the state invested in a 1000 inmate prison but there's only 600 prisoners?
    - michaelmrose 4y ago
      The people running the prisons give money to politicians, judges, sheriff's who are elected and make and enforce the laws. In one instance 2 judges were being bribed directly to sentence juveniles to maximimum sentences cutting out the middleman and directly selling minority children into slavery like it's 1822 rather than 2022. You actually don't see the moral hazard here?
      - gruez 4y ago
        > The people running the prisons give money to politicians, judges, sheriff's who are elected and make and enforce the laws. under this interpretation you should probably ban police/correctional officers as well, because they have the same moral hazard. Same goes for anyone else that is involved in institutions that profit off human suffering (eg. hospitals).
        michaelmrose 4y ago
        In the prior example you considered the separation between lawmaker, prosecutor, and jailer sufficient to provide objectivity in theory ignoring while making no study of the actuality where money flows from prison companies directly to lawmakers. Now you make a spurious connection between prison and hospital because I guess suffering happens in both institutions? Yes in theory EVERY institution may advocate for positions that advance their interests over the populace but none other is so odious as to advocate for more people to be in chains so they may directly trade the hours and years of their lives for gold nor selling the labor of the slaves it has so corruptly acquired by advocating for greater bondage. It seems to me obvious that police officers, correction officers, and hospital staff are all absolutely necessary for the function of our society. Having private prisons which only house 8% of inmates at this time absolutely isn't.

gruez 4y ago

>That sounds pretty nefarious to me because the state has a duty of care for its citizens - of which this is a clear and flagrant abdication. Which part of it constitutes "a clear and flagrant abdication"? >At the end of the day this is the same thing - the state should be paying less when there's less crime. It should be incentivized to stop crime from happening in the first place. >It should be spending that money not on guaranteeing profits for corporations but instead on programs that reduce criminality. This ignores the basic economic reality that the upfront investment needs to be paid somehow. Without it, you end up with too little prison capacity and overcrowded prisons, which is also inhumane. The alternatives aren't much better: 1. if the upfront investment is funded by the taxpayer, and it ends up getting underutilized, the taxpayer is still on the hook for the opportunity cost of the investment 2. if prisons are privatized but without guarantees, the state will need to pay more to make up for the uncertainly, leaving the taxpayers on the hook.

michaelmrose 4y ago
It's simpler just to make the privately run prisons illegal so as to avoid any moral hazards. If the facility is under utilized less investment will be needed in the future and conditions can be improved for existing inmates.
- gruez 4y ago
  > It's simpler just to make the privately run prisons illegal so as to avoid any moral hazards. What are the moral hazards here? The people running the prisons aren't the ones sentencing/convicting criminals. >If the facility is under utilized less investment will be needed in the future and conditions can be improved for existing inmates. What's the difference between wasting money because the state didn't meet the minimum inmate quota, and wasting money because the state invested in a 1000 inmate prison but there's only 600 prisoners?
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    The people running the prisons give money to politicians, judges, sheriff's who are elected and make and enforce the laws. In one instance 2 judges were being bribed directly to sentence juveniles to maximimum sentences cutting out the middleman and directly selling minority children into slavery like it's 1822 rather than 2022. You actually don't see the moral hazard here?
    - gruez 4y ago
      > The people running the prisons give money to politicians, judges, sheriff's who are elected and make and enforce the laws. under this interpretation you should probably ban police/correctional officers as well, because they have the same moral hazard. Same goes for anyone else that is involved in institutions that profit off human suffering (eg. hospitals).
      - michaelmrose 4y ago
        In the prior example you considered the separation between lawmaker, prosecutor, and jailer sufficient to provide objectivity in theory ignoring while making no study of the actuality where money flows from prison companies directly to lawmakers. Now you make a spurious connection between prison and hospital because I guess suffering happens in both institutions? Yes in theory EVERY institution may advocate for positions that advance their interests over the populace but none other is so odious as to advocate for more people to be in chains so they may directly trade the hours and years of their lives for gold nor selling the labor of the slaves it has so corruptly acquired by advocating for greater bondage. It seems to me obvious that police officers, correction officers, and hospital staff are all absolutely necessary for the function of our society. Having private prisons which only house 8% of inmates at this time absolutely isn't.