15 ms·

Private companies have a greater motivation to maximize profits than public entities do. The problems stem from that. That is more or less the ACLU's opinion,

by serf 11y ago

Private companies have a greater motivation to maximize profits than public entities do. The problems stem from that. That is more or less the ACLU's opinion, as well. https://www.aclu.org/blog/private-prisons-are-problem-not-solution https://www.aclu.org/blog/private-prisons-are-problem-not-so...

dsinsky 11y ago
>> Private companies have a greater motivation to maximize profits than public entities do. Corrections officers unions have strong motivations to keep prison populations high as well and unions tend to be stronger in the public sector than the private sector so its not obvious that private prisons increase the aggregate political pressure for high prison sentences. http://mic.com/articles/41531/union-of-the-snake-how-california-s-prison-guards-subvert-democracy http://mic.com/articles/41531/union-of-the-snake-how-califor... >> The problems stem from that. This seems like a serious inversion of cause and effect. Our problems with prisons pre-dated the growth in private prisons and private prisons remain a small fraction of the overall prison industry so its hard to see how private prisons could be the primary source of the problem.
- lotso 11y ago
  >Corrections officers unions have strong motivations to keep prison populations high as well and unions tend to be stronger in the public sector than the private sector so its not obvious that private prisons increase the aggregate political pressure for high prison sentences. It's not about prison sentences. It's about the poor conditions of private prisons and the rampant abuse there.
  - mistermumble 11y ago
    Haven't looked at this closely, but I would think corrections officers would care about keeping their jobs and increasing their pay, and perhaps reducing their work (by lowering the prisoner/officer ratio). Those incentives seem benign compared to a private corporation, which would be incentivized to increase the prisoner population (build more prisons, more revenue), and increase the prisoner/officer ratio (more profits). These changes would have a negative impact on prisoners, officers, and society at large.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  This is true, but publicly run prisons are subject to greater transparency because of things like the Freedom of Information Act which would not apply to private firms by default, only by contract.
smsm42 11y ago
Do unions count as public entities or private ones? Because they have a lot of motivation, and a lot of money, and a lot of success of converting the former into political clout. But somehow I don't see their motives questioned as often as "motivation to maximize profits". There are a lot of companies that extract profits from what can be regarded as other's misfortune - from hospitals to computer security specialists. However that does not necessarily means that hospitals promote disease and computer security professionals routinely spread malware and deliberately compromise their clients' security, to boost their business. Something better than "they have motive to do so" would be required for that claim.
- ganeumann 11y ago
  The difference is that patients can choose their hospital, so the hospital has an incentive to have a reputation for the best care. In the case of prisons, the customer and the user are different people.
  - polymatter 11y ago
    be interesting if we allowed prisoners the choice of prison, haha.
  - mason240 11y ago
    Sounds like an incentive for more people to commit less crime.
  - smsm42 11y ago
    This is true, but I see no difference here in private or state prison - in both cases agent problem exists, and in both cases there's no choice for the "user". The only difference is that if there are two prison companies, and one of them is really bad, citizens can fire it (through pressure on their elected representatives) and hire another with relative ease. If all prisons are owned by the state, you can't fire the state and the status quo is protected by the powerful and concentrated effort of the public worker's unions, which has clout that is hard to match or overcome. So I don't see how private companies make things worse, even taking into account the agency problem. To consider if private companies are worse or not, it is not enough to find a problem in private company, it is also necessary to show that the same (or worse) problem is not present in the alternative, which I don't see happening here.

by serf 11y ago

dsinsky 11y ago

>> Private companies have a greater motivation to maximize profits than public entities do. Corrections officers unions have strong motivations to keep prison populations high as well and unions tend to be stronger in the public sector than the private sector so its not obvious that private prisons increase the aggregate political pressure for high prison sentences. http://mic.com/articles/41531/union-of-the-snake-how-california-s-prison-guards-subvert-democracy http://mic.com/articles/41531/union-of-the-snake-how-califor... >> The problems stem from that. This seems like a serious inversion of cause and effect. Our problems with prisons pre-dated the growth in private prisons and private prisons remain a small fraction of the overall prison industry so its hard to see how private prisons could be the primary source of the problem.

lotso 11y ago
>Corrections officers unions have strong motivations to keep prison populations high as well and unions tend to be stronger in the public sector than the private sector so its not obvious that private prisons increase the aggregate political pressure for high prison sentences. It's not about prison sentences. It's about the poor conditions of private prisons and the rampant abuse there.
- mistermumble 11y ago
  Haven't looked at this closely, but I would think corrections officers would care about keeping their jobs and increasing their pay, and perhaps reducing their work (by lowering the prisoner/officer ratio). Those incentives seem benign compared to a private corporation, which would be incentivized to increase the prisoner population (build more prisons, more revenue), and increase the prisoner/officer ratio (more profits). These changes would have a negative impact on prisoners, officers, and society at large.
anigbrowl 11y ago
This is true, but publicly run prisons are subject to greater transparency because of things like the Freedom of Information Act which would not apply to private firms by default, only by contract.

smsm42 11y ago

Do unions count as public entities or private ones? Because they have a lot of motivation, and a lot of money, and a lot of success of converting the former into political clout. But somehow I don't see their motives questioned as often as "motivation to maximize profits". There are a lot of companies that extract profits from what can be regarded as other's misfortune - from hospitals to computer security specialists. However that does not necessarily means that hospitals promote disease and computer security professionals routinely spread malware and deliberately compromise their clients' security, to boost their business. Something better than "they have motive to do so" would be required for that claim.

ganeumann 11y ago
The difference is that patients can choose their hospital, so the hospital has an incentive to have a reputation for the best care. In the case of prisons, the customer and the user are different people.
- polymatter 11y ago
  be interesting if we allowed prisoners the choice of prison, haha.
- mason240 11y ago
  Sounds like an incentive for more people to commit less crime.
- smsm42 11y ago
  This is true, but I see no difference here in private or state prison - in both cases agent problem exists, and in both cases there's no choice for the "user". The only difference is that if there are two prison companies, and one of them is really bad, citizens can fire it (through pressure on their elected representatives) and hire another with relative ease. If all prisons are owned by the state, you can't fire the state and the status quo is protected by the powerful and concentrated effort of the public worker's unions, which has clout that is hard to match or overcome. So I don't see how private companies make things worse, even taking into account the agency problem. To consider if private companies are worse or not, it is not enough to find a problem in private company, it is also necessary to show that the same (or worse) problem is not present in the alternative, which I don't see happening here.