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

441–450 of 646 posts

Re: California bans private prisons

#441

Post by arcticbull »

microcolonel wrote: post #431
arcticbull wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatives under Harper started to align their policies more with Democrats and then with eventually Republicans. The gag orders on scientists, climate denial, private prisons, mandatory minimum sentences with a focus on drug crimes, slashing social programs, tightening up immigration and nationality rules, singling out muslims, and broad tax cuts without specific goals. This is the playbook of the US right / glob…

Fair enough, this was basically what I thought you meant; there are a lot of people in the "lol they is nazis because they is tories lol" camp and I worry sometimes that nobody is actually paying attention to the specific issues. The one that really got to me was the F-35 purchase order, which they did not even try to explain to the public. I hope the PPC can bring some competition and vigour back to our parliament,…

F-35 was such a nightmare lol. Definitely with you that competition is always good, I like that while the NDP isn’t likely to enter office any time soon there’s 3 or 4 (if you count the Greens) major parties in Canada. That gives me the warm fuzzies even if I don’t agree with all the policies of each.

Two parties rounds down to one.

Re: California bans private prisons

#442

Post by [deleted] »

jjeaff wrote: post #329
arcticbull wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm also in favor of socialized medicine for basically exactly these reasons. Shocker, I know. The system works! I grew up in socialized medicine, and you get sick, you go to the hospital, they treat you and you leave. There's no step 4. Why Americans continue to willingly subject themselves to these torturous systems is beyond me. It's all in y'alls control.

Because when people talk about how terrible healthcare is here, it's usually people who don't have or can't afford good insurance. And by good, I mean covers most everything and doesn't have a huge out of pocket. If you have good health insurance, the healthcare in the US is absolutely top tier. Many people that complain are getting a plan with a huge deductible either because they are being cheap or can't afford bet…

[deleted]

Re: California bans private prisons

#443

Post by arcticbull »

mrep wrote: post #417
arcticbull wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might I suggest perusing the Farm Bill? The government is literally paying farmers to grow crops people wouldn’t pay for. That doesn’t sound like a very free market system... frankly I wish they’d stop.

That's to insure we aren't undersupplied on food and famines caused by a bad season/trade with another country are absolutely terrible. Seems like a cheap insurance for a terrible possible outcome especially considering that any consistent oversupply from the subsidies will get weeded out due to the subsidies. Would you prefer a shortage of food every few years?

That hardly supports your argument that it’s a free market, and that’s the point I was making. The rest was an aside. I don’t know there’s evidence that not subsidizing corn (the vast majority isn’t for human consumption anyways) to below the cost of production is the only way you ensure lack of famine. Either way I’m not sure why this socialism is okay but medicine is beyond the pail.

For instance grain crops can be stored long-term by the government [1] and of course so can raisins [2]. None of this has to do with the farm bill.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_grain_reserve

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Raisin_Reserve

Re: California bans private prisons

#444

Post by tomlockwood »

chroma wrote: post #404
the-pigeon wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah I see you've never implemented an incentive program before. EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM GETS GAMED. NO MATTER WHAT YOU MEASURE. Every metric you could possible think of can be manipulated in ways you can't imagine. But give private companies the incentive and someone in them will figure it out. IMO the only way to run things like prisons is to hire people that strongly care about the public good to run them. Hire people w…

If you look at my comments throughout this thread, you'll see that I am aware of the potential for incentives to have undesirable higher-order effects. Many people in this thread have suggested certain concrete undesirable consequences, and I've replied to them. In contrast, you are putting forth a fully general counterargument to any incentive structure. But clearly financial incentives work in many cases. It's what…

> In contrast, you are putting forth a fully general counterargument to any incentive structure. But clearly financial incentives work in many cases.

Yeah but I think the big question here is - in what cases?

There's a lot of evidence to suggest financial incentives are in some cases, bad.

Take for example, the financial incentives given to people for running a private prison. Bam.

Re: California bans private prisons

#445

Post by dannypgh »

civilian wrote: post #440
the-pigeon wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah I see you've never implemented an incentive program before. EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM GETS GAMED. NO MATTER WHAT YOU MEASURE. Every metric you could possible think of can be manipulated in ways you can't imagine. But give private companies the incentive and someone in them will figure it out. IMO the only way to run things like prisons is to hire people that strongly care about the public good to run them. Hire people w…

If "gaming" the system means less recidivism, that sounds good to me. Prison ships to Australia were originally paid per passenger that boarded in Britain. The death rates were horrible, in the double-digit percentages. When the transport ships were instead paid per passenger that _arrived_ the death rates went down phenomenally. And someone like you might say: "omg these prison ships gamed the system by saving lives…

You can lower recidivism rates by reducing rates that people are released. Or, for that matter, by providing legal assistance to ex-cons who reoffend. Not sure people who want to see real criminal justice reform would be happy about either...

(edit: not sure what the downvote is for, but I want to be clear that I'm not for gaming the rates in this way. I'm merely saying we don't want to incentivize lowering recividism rates at the expense of everything else)

Re: California bans private prisons

#446

Post by ShorsHammer »

wwweston wrote: post #438
chroma wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at my comments throughout this thread, you'll see that I am aware of the potential for incentives to have undesirable higher-order effects. Many people in this thread have suggested certain concrete undesirable consequences, and I've replied to them. In contrast, you are putting forth a fully general counterargument to any incentive structure. But clearly financial incentives work in many cases. It's what…

> a fully general counterargument to any incentive structure. A general counterargument is worth considering. Any incentive sufficiently powerful to draw forth extra resourcefulness in its legitimate pursuit is quite likely to also draw forth extra resourcefulness in its illegitimate pursuit. > It's what businesses use for their leadership teams. This is may help your case considerably less than you think if you look…

How exactly can a private prison "illegitimately pursue" having a lower recidivism rate?

Simply handwaving it away with incentives being gamed seems to complete ignore that you are suggesting that there will be widespread systemic corruption of the entire nation's judicial system. Perhaps the general counterargument could really take a moment to focus on the details.

Prisoners not being convicted of more crimes down the line seems to be a no-brainer in societal benefit, or does the line of generalised argument presented here think that's not the case with some more handwaving about optimal outcomes?

Re: California bans private prisons

#447

Post by winstonewert »

the-pigeon wrote: post #375
chroma wrote: post #109

I think private prisons could work if: - Convicts could choose whether to be sent to a public or private prison. - Private prisons had financial incentives for post-incarceration behavior. Eg: If their prisoner recidivism rate after 3 years was 10% lower than the average public prison, they would get a 20% bonus. Those changes would create enough competition and align incentives such that we could see some real innov…

Ah I see you've never implemented an incentive program before. EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM GETS GAMED. NO MATTER WHAT YOU MEASURE. Every metric you could possible think of can be manipulated in ways you can't imagine. But give private companies the incentive and someone in them will figure it out. IMO the only way to run things like prisons is to hire people that strongly care about the public good to run them. Hire people w…

> EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM GETS GAMED. NO MATTER WHAT YOU MEASURE.

Yep. Thinking that you can just design a good incentive structure and be done with is hopelessly naive.

> IMO the only way to run things like prisons is to hire people that strongly care about the public good to run them. Hire people who want to run a good organization that accomplishes the organization's goals. Which for prisons should be rehabilitation and safety.

Thinking that you can just hire people that care about the public good is just as naive as thinking that you can just devise the right incentive structure.

Re: California bans private prisons

#448

Post by tlb »

ShorsHammer wrote: post #446
wwweston wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a fully general counterargument to any incentive structure. A general counterargument is worth considering. Any incentive sufficiently powerful to draw forth extra resourcefulness in its legitimate pursuit is quite likely to also draw forth extra resourcefulness in its illegitimate pursuit. > It's what businesses use for their leadership teams. This is may help your case considerably less than you think if you look…

How exactly can a private prison "illegitimately pursue" having a lower recidivism rate? Simply handwaving it away with incentives being gamed seems to complete ignore that you are suggesting that there will be widespread systemic corruption of the entire nation's judicial system. Perhaps the general counterargument could really take a moment to focus on the details. Prisoners not being convicted of more crimes down…

For instance, they could teach prisoners how not to get caught.

EDIT: what does it mean that I love thinking about ways of gaming systems like this?

Re: California bans private prisons

#450

Post by asdfgasd »

anarchodev wrote: post #396
vonmoltke wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"[F]acists" and "concentration camps" are intentionally incendiary and do not promote a constructive discussion. There is nothing reasonable about that wording at all.

These are descriptive terms for what currently exist in the US (and have existed before in the US). If hearing them causes you to feel emotions that don’t allow you to engage in civil discussion I think it’s worth investigating why that is —- not insisting we find less precise terminology.

There is an implicit assumption that the status-quo in the US can't possibly be bad, because people wouldn't stand for it. Of course, when people do choose to stand against it, it's branded as uncivil.

Anything to manufacture consent for the economic degeneracy of the bourgeois, even if it means covering for the fascists.

Post reply on HN