5 ms·

I've never understood how prisons could be allowed to become private businesses. It's "evil" by definition.

snitko 13y ago
I quite agree that the way it currently works, private prisons are the worst. However the root of the problem is not that they are private, but rather that they are still paid by the government. Private prisons have all the incentives in the world to hold prisoners for as long as they can, because they know government is paying and it's paying with taxpayers money. That is, bureaucrats by definition cannot be nearly as careful with taxpayers money as taxpayers would be themselves. That is not even mentioning various corruption possibilities. Now, for a moment, imagine private prisons and systems of law that are directly financed by each and every person and which have competitors. Most people's objective is to stay safe, not keep others in prison longer. This objective, together with the fact that they actually can see and decide how much of their income goes into imprisonment would serve as a powerful incentive for private law enforcement companies to focus on safety and prevention instead of incarcerating people (especially when it comes to victimless crimes). It's one thing to just vote and make a certain drug illegal, imprisoning all who's caught in possession, knowing full well that money one has paid in the form of taxes are gone anyway. It is a completely different thing to decide whether to have some additional money this month or pay for the imprisonment of someone whose lifestyle you dislike.
- randallsquared 13y ago
  It's not clear to me that a private system of law would have any prisons, private or otherwise. At most, I'd expect very temporary jails for pre-trial, but the risk of having to pay restitution for kidnapping in the event that the suspect was found not guilty would make insurance very expensive. ;)
  - snitko 13y ago
    I agree. You'd still have to figure out what to do with violent sociopaths, repeatedly breaking laws and not showing any signs of change. I would probably agree to pay to keep em locked until (if ever) they are considered not dangerous to the society.
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      Come on ... George Carlin solved it 20 years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmJ2snsLxWw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmJ2snsLxWw I miss that guy so much
      - popee 13y ago
        > I miss that guy so much And Bill Hicks.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Could the down voters of this post please explain why they down voted it? I ask because it seems quite reasonable and mild to me. What am I and the author of this post missing? Is there some massive killer point that has been missed, or something? Edit: it now seems less grey now!! Even so, my question still seems reasonable.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >I quite agree that the way it currently works, private prisons are the worst. However the root of the problem is not that they are private, but rather that they are still paid by the government. Private prisons have all the incentives in the world to hold prisoners for as long as they can, because they know government is paying and it's paying with taxpayers money. Now, for a moment, imagine private prisons and systems of law that are directly financed by each and every person and which have competitors. How would this change anything, if not for the worse? In this version, they have an incentive to keep the legal system churning even more prisoners, so they can get paid more, build more prisons etc. That will end in a huge witch-hund, revamped racism, worse drug laws etc. People will not have the option "not to pay", because the law says those people have to be put in jail, and the jail is private (e.g municipal). And as for the prisoners themselves, they will get even worst treatment, they will try to make money out of them (forced prison labour), and they will try to keep the costs as minimum as they can, e.g shoving them in cells with 10 and 20 people, like in some Latin American hell hole. >It is a completely different thing to decide whether to have some additional money this month or pay for the imprisonment of someone whose lifestyle you dislike. Yes, so the "good people" in conservative states, say, might also say: "Why pay to keep in prison all these people? Make more offenses punishable by execution, and make execution procedures faster and cheaper, so we cat get rid of those n... (the n word), for, say $10K per head". So you might get pressure to get some people off for lighter crimes, but you'll also get pressure to execute people for things that would get 20-30 years or life currently.
  - snitko 13y ago
    > People will not have the option "not to pay", because the law says those people have to be put in jail, and the jail is private I think you misunderstand the idea. The only system in which you have to pay is when you have a government collecting taxes. If you don't pay, you're gonna get in trouble. By contrast, in a polylegal system with no central body issuing laws, people choose law firms with the set of laws they like the most, voluntarily. If at some point they dislike how a firm does its business and protects its customers interests he may switch to a different firm (how conflicts are resolved between customers of two different firms is a more interesting question, which for the sake of brevity I'm gonna leave out for now). My objective as a customer is to be safe, not treat prisoners like shit and make money off them. Thus, if I don't like how my law firm treats prisoners, I stop paying immediately. Note: I don't need to vote or convince anyone it's a bad thing, I simply stop financing bad things. > Yes, so the "good people" in conservative states, say, might also say: "Why pay to keep in prison all these people? Exactly. Then don't go to conservative states and don't become a client of such a conservative law firm. These laws may be brutal, but if some group of people voluntarily decides to live by them, not forcing me to live by them too, why should I be against it?
gadders 13y ago
Offtopic.
Prophasi 13y ago
By definition? That requires some justification. The justice system still sets the parameters and manages the procedures by which sentences are handed down. If a court determines you're going to prison for 10 years, you're going -- the private company manages your environment for that time. And given that private parties also manage your medical care, hospital stays, air travel, car manufacture, work environments, home building, and thousands of other mechanisms and environments that determine your safety and quality of living, I struggle with finding a moral difference when it comes to prisons. You could argue that these other things are voluntary and prison isn't, but it's involuntary even if run by government; most inmates would opt out either way. And I think it's highly naive, this distinction between private companies as greedy, interested parties and government agencies and functionaries as objective arbiters of truth and goodwill. Either way you have ridiculous salaries, internal power struggles, marketing/perception, budget committees, and cynical people inured to the hard realities of the lives they affect.
- pilif 13y ago
  It starts to become a problem when judges and district attorneys own shares of the companies that run the prisons. This creates a clear conflict of interest (the more people they can convict, the more money they will make) which so far doesn't seem to be noticed as you read about such circumstances at times.
  - Prophasi 13y ago
    That's fair, and unquestionably a conflict of interest. However, it's not an irrevocable quality of a prison run by a private company (and therefore evil "by definition"). OTOH, purchase of shares is at least an above-board, traceable interaction. Government officials have always gotten perks and kickbacks from private companies, rich individuals, NGOs, and their own budgets that are either off the books or disguised as something else, and therefore less transparent. I haven't seen (or yet hunted for) a study of publicly run vs. privately run prisons, in terms of treatment, costs, etc.; but I'd be curious, to say the least.
- nrb 13y ago
  The issue isn't that the company is private, the issue is with the fact it's a for-profit entity. This leads to a host of perverse incentives such as providing the lowest possible level of care for the most money possible and a lack of effort put into curbing recidivism (repeat business!!). There are juvenile facilities that are run by non-profits and they exhibit lower rates of recidivism with a cost far lower than public prisons still.
Shivetya 13y ago
private or government, I fail to see a difference. The increased incarceration in some states is pushed by the unions that represent the guards and other persons working the prisons, California is a great example. I think a better complaint is when prisons become tools of the political class. They create a feedback loop by having stricter and more laws than increase the prison population. That in turn means more prisons, more guards, more support persons, all who are unionized. They in turn pay more dues which becomes more contributions via ad buys or direct to the coffers of the legislator. Let alone all those union dues payers making their own contribution. Ask yourself, as a prison guard which benefits you more? Legislators legalizing pot or those who don't want it legalized? The same with about any law. If not asked at the individual guard level then ask at the union level.
- jeltz 13y ago
  I do not think the unions are the only ones to blame. If so why are the unions a problem in California (a state with private prisons) while not close to as much of a problem in places with government prisons? My theory is that the owners and the unions work together towards the same goal. The owners get a very powerful lobby group in the unions.

I quite agree that the way it currently works, private prisons are the worst. However the root of the problem is not that they are private, but rather that they are still paid by the government. Private prisons have all the incentives in the world to hold prisoners for as long as they can, because they know government is paying and it's paying with taxpayers money. That is, bureaucrats by definition cannot be nearly as careful with taxpayers money as taxpayers would be themselves. That is not even mentioning various corruption possibilities. Now, for a moment, imagine private prisons and systems of law that are directly financed by each and every person and which have competitors. Most people's objective is to stay safe, not keep others in prison longer. This objective, together with the fact that they actually can see and decide how much of their income goes into imprisonment would serve as a powerful incentive for private law enforcement companies to focus on safety and prevention instead of incarcerating people (especially when it comes to victimless crimes). It's one thing to just vote and make a certain drug illegal, imprisoning all who's caught in possession, knowing full well that money one has paid in the form of taxes are gone anyway. It is a completely different thing to decide whether to have some additional money this month or pay for the imprisonment of someone whose lifestyle you dislike.

randallsquared 13y ago
It's not clear to me that a private system of law would have any prisons, private or otherwise. At most, I'd expect very temporary jails for pre-trial, but the risk of having to pay restitution for kidnapping in the event that the suspect was found not guilty would make insurance very expensive. ;)
- snitko 13y ago
  I agree. You'd still have to figure out what to do with violent sociopaths, repeatedly breaking laws and not showing any signs of change. I would probably agree to pay to keep em locked until (if ever) they are considered not dangerous to the society.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    Come on ... George Carlin solved it 20 years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmJ2snsLxWw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmJ2snsLxWw I miss that guy so much
    - popee 13y ago
      > I miss that guy so much And Bill Hicks.
alan_cx 13y ago
Could the down voters of this post please explain why they down voted it? I ask because it seems quite reasonable and mild to me. What am I and the author of this post missing? Is there some massive killer point that has been missed, or something? Edit: it now seems less grey now!! Even so, my question still seems reasonable.
coldtea 13y ago
>I quite agree that the way it currently works, private prisons are the worst. However the root of the problem is not that they are private, but rather that they are still paid by the government. Private prisons have all the incentives in the world to hold prisoners for as long as they can, because they know government is paying and it's paying with taxpayers money. Now, for a moment, imagine private prisons and systems of law that are directly financed by each and every person and which have competitors. How would this change anything, if not for the worse? In this version, they have an incentive to keep the legal system churning even more prisoners, so they can get paid more, build more prisons etc. That will end in a huge witch-hund, revamped racism, worse drug laws etc. People will not have the option "not to pay", because the law says those people have to be put in jail, and the jail is private (e.g municipal). And as for the prisoners themselves, they will get even worst treatment, they will try to make money out of them (forced prison labour), and they will try to keep the costs as minimum as they can, e.g shoving them in cells with 10 and 20 people, like in some Latin American hell hole. >It is a completely different thing to decide whether to have some additional money this month or pay for the imprisonment of someone whose lifestyle you dislike. Yes, so the "good people" in conservative states, say, might also say: "Why pay to keep in prison all these people? Make more offenses punishable by execution, and make execution procedures faster and cheaper, so we cat get rid of those n... (the n word), for, say $10K per head". So you might get pressure to get some people off for lighter crimes, but you'll also get pressure to execute people for things that would get 20-30 years or life currently.
- snitko 13y ago
  > People will not have the option "not to pay", because the law says those people have to be put in jail, and the jail is private I think you misunderstand the idea. The only system in which you have to pay is when you have a government collecting taxes. If you don't pay, you're gonna get in trouble. By contrast, in a polylegal system with no central body issuing laws, people choose law firms with the set of laws they like the most, voluntarily. If at some point they dislike how a firm does its business and protects its customers interests he may switch to a different firm (how conflicts are resolved between customers of two different firms is a more interesting question, which for the sake of brevity I'm gonna leave out for now). My objective as a customer is to be safe, not treat prisoners like shit and make money off them. Thus, if I don't like how my law firm treats prisoners, I stop paying immediately. Note: I don't need to vote or convince anyone it's a bad thing, I simply stop financing bad things. > Yes, so the "good people" in conservative states, say, might also say: "Why pay to keep in prison all these people? Exactly. Then don't go to conservative states and don't become a client of such a conservative law firm. These laws may be brutal, but if some group of people voluntarily decides to live by them, not forcing me to live by them too, why should I be against it?

gadders 13y ago

Offtopic.

Prophasi 13y ago

By definition? That requires some justification. The justice system still sets the parameters and manages the procedures by which sentences are handed down. If a court determines you're going to prison for 10 years, you're going -- the private company manages your environment for that time. And given that private parties also manage your medical care, hospital stays, air travel, car manufacture, work environments, home building, and thousands of other mechanisms and environments that determine your safety and quality of living, I struggle with finding a moral difference when it comes to prisons. You could argue that these other things are voluntary and prison isn't, but it's involuntary even if run by government; most inmates would opt out either way. And I think it's highly naive, this distinction between private companies as greedy, interested parties and government agencies and functionaries as objective arbiters of truth and goodwill. Either way you have ridiculous salaries, internal power struggles, marketing/perception, budget committees, and cynical people inured to the hard realities of the lives they affect.

pilif 13y ago
It starts to become a problem when judges and district attorneys own shares of the companies that run the prisons. This creates a clear conflict of interest (the more people they can convict, the more money they will make) which so far doesn't seem to be noticed as you read about such circumstances at times.
- Prophasi 13y ago
  That's fair, and unquestionably a conflict of interest. However, it's not an irrevocable quality of a prison run by a private company (and therefore evil "by definition"). OTOH, purchase of shares is at least an above-board, traceable interaction. Government officials have always gotten perks and kickbacks from private companies, rich individuals, NGOs, and their own budgets that are either off the books or disguised as something else, and therefore less transparent. I haven't seen (or yet hunted for) a study of publicly run vs. privately run prisons, in terms of treatment, costs, etc.; but I'd be curious, to say the least.
nrb 13y ago
The issue isn't that the company is private, the issue is with the fact it's a for-profit entity. This leads to a host of perverse incentives such as providing the lowest possible level of care for the most money possible and a lack of effort put into curbing recidivism (repeat business!!). There are juvenile facilities that are run by non-profits and they exhibit lower rates of recidivism with a cost far lower than public prisons still.

Shivetya 13y ago

private or government, I fail to see a difference. The increased incarceration in some states is pushed by the unions that represent the guards and other persons working the prisons, California is a great example. I think a better complaint is when prisons become tools of the political class. They create a feedback loop by having stricter and more laws than increase the prison population. That in turn means more prisons, more guards, more support persons, all who are unionized. They in turn pay more dues which becomes more contributions via ad buys or direct to the coffers of the legislator. Let alone all those union dues payers making their own contribution. Ask yourself, as a prison guard which benefits you more? Legislators legalizing pot or those who don't want it legalized? The same with about any law. If not asked at the individual guard level then ask at the union level.

jeltz 13y ago
I do not think the unions are the only ones to blame. If so why are the unions a problem in California (a state with private prisons) while not close to as much of a problem in places with government prisons? My theory is that the owners and the unions work together towards the same goal. The owners get a very powerful lobby group in the unions.