California bans private prisons • Hacker News Board

Re: California bans private prisons

#111

Post by hanniabu » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:12 PM UTC

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 FCC under Obama had capped the amount they could charge which was promptly undone with government changes.

We see this time and time again. There really needs to be a better protocol for this. It takes so much time and effort to make these laws, yet they can be undone in a heartbeat. It's an inherently flawed system.

Re: California bans private prisons

#112

Post by aazaa » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:12 PM UTC

> “We have to worry about all the people who are detained right now,” said Servine. “Where will they end up?”

Along those lines, what's the plan for dealing with the inmates from other prisons that this legislation will make ineligible?

For example, there's a private correctional center in California City:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_City_Correctional_C...

Re: California bans private prisons

#113

Post by heavenlyblue » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:12 PM UTC

spoiledtechie wrote: post #75

I would recommend you do some research on this topic. Your giving a talking point 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...

Third time I am seeing this commenter mentioning this link.

The research was done in 1991 and only had 200 samples.

Re: California bans private prisons

#114

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:12 PM UTC

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...

talking points produced by mainstream talking heads.

Dismissing other people's comments as not their own is kinda insulting and derails discussion. Obviously exceptions exist for people who spam the same thing over and over, but it's a negative debate tactic that often veers into fallacy.

Re: California bans private prisons

#115

Post by dmix » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:12 PM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #87

dmix wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

Yep, that’s another distinction I wish would enter public perception. Much like how socialism vs communism distinction was made to try to separate some of their better ideas from a long legacy of negative baggage.

I think libertarians would benefit from creating a clearer spectrum within their own community between the more practical (and popular) small government/minarchist side and the more extreme anarcho-capitalist privatize everything group. Too often they seem to be happy having these lines blurred. Plus I don’t think there is any contradictions or significant compromises in doing so. If anything pushing for pipe dream imaginary economic systems or half solution public/private stop gaps isn’t helping anyone.

Re: California bans private prisons

#116

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:12 PM UTC

blancheneige wrote: post #88

wahern wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "usual…

[deleted]

Re: California bans private prisons

#117

Post by gigatexal » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:13 PM UTC

Wholly supported. There’s no way a private prison would be incentivized to lower recidivism but is instead incentivized to increase it. Here’s to hoping we foster rehabilitation over punishment in our prisons and put an end to what is effectively slave labor (inmates making things for pennies on the dollar).

Re: California bans private prisons

#118

Post by paulpauper » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:14 PM UTC

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…

yeah the govt seldom builds anything. it just contracts it out. A federal prisons may be staffed by govt. employees but otherwise privatized in every other respect such as construction, surveillance, and supplies.

Re: California bans private prisons

#119

Post by domnomnom » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:15 PM UTC

While probably a good idea, I fear somehow the execution will be butchered by incompetence and then blamed on cops or racism. Issues have a tendency to go left unsolved when maintaining a narrative takes precedent over actual problem solving.

Re: California bans private prisons

#120

Post by bsder » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:15 PM UTC

cldellow wrote: post #95

addicted wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Agreed, there's lots of work to do in public prison reform, too. FWIW, the judges you mention are probably the two in the Kids for cash scandal [1]. They're currently serving sentences ranging from 17 to 28 years. Good riddance. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

Yeah, the worst part is that these jerks would be out by now if they kept their mouths shut--they should rot permanently.

Thank God they opened their mouths, pissed off the judge overseeing their plea agreement who then yanked it, and got sentenced to about 3 times the jail time they would have had otherwise.