Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California bans private prisons

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 646 posts

Re: California bans private prisons

#81

Post by [deleted] »

warent wrote: post #45
thatswrong0 wrote: post #39

Honestly, it's a bit of a red herring.. nothing is going to change from a criminal justice perspective. Less than 10% of incarcerated people are held in private prisons. But even more importantly, there are still so many private contractors / unions in the (public/private) prison industry that this ban won't really affect policies or outcomes going forward.. private interests will almost always exist in it that have…

I don't think that's a fair assessment. Just because it's not a huge revolutionary reform that doesn't make incremental improvements a red herring. These are just steps toward a better world.

[deleted]

Re: California bans private prisons

#82

Post by goda90 »

spoiledtechie wrote: post #74

I would recommend you do some research on this topic. Your giving talking points produced by mainstream talking heads. When in fact, research points to private prisons being better at dropping incarceration rates through the programs offered at them. Therefore increasing ones chance at correct rehabilitation. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249718665_A_Compara...

But could public prisons have even better results if there weren't heavy lobbying for various laws and policies? It seems like it's another case ripe for regulatory capture to degrade the public option.

Re: California bans private prisons

#83

Post by sharkmerry »

thatswrong0 wrote: post #59
warent wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. Just because it's not a huge revolutionary reform that doesn't make incremental improvements a red herring. These are just steps toward a better world.

I suppose I was being a bit strong. I just don't want anyone to get the impression that it's anything _but_ the teensiest of baby steps.

Is almost 10% of prisoners really only baby steps? I understand your point, they will be transferred to a new prison that will still have private interests, but to call it baby steps still seems exaggerated and defeatist

Re: California bans private prisons

#84

Post by rapind »

addicted wrote: post #58
thatswrong0 wrote: post #39

Honestly, it's a bit of a red herring.. nothing is going to change from a criminal justice perspective. Less than 10% of incarcerated people are held in private prisons. But even more importantly, there are still so many private contractors / unions in the (public/private) prison industry that this ban won't really affect policies or outcomes going forward.. private interests will almost always exist in it that have…

Public jails are doing the same things because companies that provide those services lobby them to do it. The FCC under Obama had capped the amount they could charge which was promptly undone with government changes. This also ignores known stories such as an example where a judge had a stake in a private prison company (or was bribed outright?) And as a result was sentencing school kids to prison for things which pr…

The problem here is corporate capture. These companies are raking it in with huge margins which would be super attractive to large amounts of competition... if competition could compete in a free market instead of buddying up with government officials.

Offering cheap phone calls isn't exactly rocket science.

Re: California bans private prisons

#85

Post by ativzzz »

Animats wrote: post #43
synaesthesisx wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if they’re ambitious they can do something about the homeless crisis next.

[flagged]

You must have not read the article considering it mentions at best

> eliminating “regulatory barriers” that White House officials believe increase the cost of building new housing. Developers have said these restrictions drive up prices on housing and limit the supply.

You can argue whether or not he's actually gonna do something or just tweet out hot air, but proclaiming concentration camps is not contributing any meaningful insight.

Re: California bans private prisons

#86

Post by dragonwriter »

sremani wrote: post #36
creaghpatr wrote: post #4

>Servin said that while the new law was a significant victory, there was one other thing immigrants rights groups were concerned about. When several sheriffs’ departments canceled their contracts to house Ice detainees last year, instead of freeing the detainees, Ice moved many of them to prisons in Colorado and Hawaii. Is this something that people against private prisons believe...that they just release all the pri…

The idea that a special interest that is financially powerful and interested in high prison population, may inject wrong incentives into the society is real and understandable. But we also have other side of the equation - politicians willing to expand definition of "crime" to placate people's fears and emotions combined with prosecutors willing to throw the book to make and example and build a career on it, all whil…

> The idea that a special interest that is financially powerful and interested in high prison population, may inject wrong incentives into the society is real and understandable.

And well established as a thing that happens at all times in California, but the real major culprit of that type is the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, not the private prison industry.

> California's real problem is MASSIVE prison population

It's been declining for nearly a decade, and despite California being the largest-population state, it's got a smaller prison population than Texas. But, yes, the prison population is too high.

> Prison overcrowd is a feature of CA prison system.

This is true, though that has also been reduced as prison population has.

> I wish they ordered their priorities right and built enough prisons to house the population safely.

Better would be to reduce the prison population to the level that can be safely housed in the existing facilities. California's problem is too many prisoners, not too few prisons.

Re: California bans private prisons

#87

Post by tshaddox »

dmix wrote: post #62
llarsson wrote: post #24

Good riddance. The whole premise of private, for-profit, prisons has always seemed deeply troubling to me. The focus of a healthy prison system should be to rehabilitate people and help them turn their lives around so that they contribute positively to society. That can take years of hard work by the individual, and require assistance from professionals (therapists, teachers, ...). A for-profit company by definition…

Even in a lot of the more mainstream libertarian literature [1] most law enforcement and the justice systems are treated as exactly the type of stuff that doesn’t make sense for a market and should be handled by the government. This should apply to prisons for much of the same reasons. Besides, most of these sorts of private/public relationships are unlike other true markets anyway with very little competition and on…

Just to note, "libertarian literature" is a very broad phrase, and there is certainly plenty of reasonably prominent literature from both the left and the right that describes itself as "libertarian" and would also oppose the idea of centralized state law enforcement and justice systems.

On the right you've got some varieties of anarcho-capitalism that support systems of polycentric law that emerge from markets for law enforcement and criminal justice. On the left you've got anarchist movements like anarcho-syndicalism which propose a decentralized or federated system of social institutions that would be determined by direct action and direct democracy.

Re: California bans private prisons

#88

Post by blancheneige »

wahern wrote: post #66
blancheneige wrote: post #22

>Two of Ice’s largest immigrant detention centers in California Can somebody explain to a legal immigrant why The Guardian keeps omitting the illegal part over twelve times throughout the article?

1) Because they're not necessarily all illegal immigrants. AFAIU, ICE puts asylum seekers who are otherwise following the letter of the law into these detention centers--show up at the border, request asylum, get put into detention while awaiting disposition of your case. 2) Are you an illegal driver for driving over the speed limit? Illegal usually implies something criminal. Crossing the border illegally is a misde…

I am referring to the terminology used by the department of homeland security [1] and other legal institutions that oversee their cases. If they are predominantly asylum seekers, then why not refer to them as asylum seekers?

>Illegal usually implies something criminal.

No, illegality does not usually imply something criminal. These are two different concept that have precise definitions in court. Nor does your "usually" carry any weight, for else we should abide by this probabilistic distribution and call them asylum seekers.

[1]: https://www.dhs.gov/topic/immigration-and-customs-enforcemen...

Re: California bans private prisons

#89

Post by pharke »

dmix wrote: post #62
llarsson wrote: post #24

Good riddance. The whole premise of private, for-profit, prisons has always seemed deeply troubling to me. The focus of a healthy prison system should be to rehabilitate people and help them turn their lives around so that they contribute positively to society. That can take years of hard work by the individual, and require assistance from professionals (therapists, teachers, ...). A for-profit company by definition…

Even in a lot of the more mainstream libertarian literature [1] most law enforcement and the justice systems are treated as exactly the type of stuff that doesn’t make sense for a market and should be handled by the government. This should apply to prisons for much of the same reasons. Besides, most of these sorts of private/public relationships are unlike other true markets anyway with very little competition and on…

I agree, I've been thinking more and more that we need to spend some serious time on defining what is and isn't best handled by markets and drawing clear bounds around those areas. I'm positive that there are enough real world examples out there to draw up the general structure of a system that would incorporate what we've learnt over the past few hundred years. I feel like most attempts to do so so far have been rather dishonest, naive, and/or biased in one direction or another.

Re: California bans private prisons

#90

Post by GoodJokes »

llarsson wrote: post #24

Good riddance. The whole premise of private, for-profit, prisons has always seemed deeply troubling to me. The focus of a healthy prison system should be to rehabilitate people and help them turn their lives around so that they contribute positively to society. That can take years of hard work by the individual, and require assistance from professionals (therapists, teachers, ...). A for-profit company by definition…

No such thing as a healthy prison system. You'll need to call it something else. Prisons are inhumane full stop.
Post reply on HN