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

491–500 of 646 posts

Re: California bans private prisons

#491

Post by _qhtn »

Galanwe wrote: post #482
phry wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What happens if police officers and prison guards go on strike? > When New York police officers temporarily reduced their “proactive policing” efforts on low-level offenses, major-crime reports in the city actually fell, according to a study based on New York Police Department crime statistics. > The scientists found that civilian complaints of major crimes dropped by about 3% to 6% during the slowdown. https://www…

I find it very malicious to just drop numbers like this. It gives the impression that you state a simple fact, while the reality is much more complicated than that. The studies on the subject require much more subtlety and statistical understanding when interpreting the results that a 2 line quotation to make a point. There are a number of factors to take into account when giving credit to such studies: - Is there en…

Thank you for the last bit about Freakonomics- it lets everyone know it's safe to ignore you.

Re: California bans private prisons

#492

Post by js8 »

55orolder wrote: post #185

I find it fascinating that private prisons draw such ire while the prison guard union draws so little, when the prison guard union has all the exact same incentives and is drastically more powerful. California would have had legal marijuana a decade sooner except for lobbing by the union, they're a major force for mandatory minimum sentences and tougher sentencing in general. This seems like a trivial easy-PR win for…

Actually, in democratic capitalism, unions in private companies are always less powerful than private companies themselves.

The power of unions (for a certain sector) in a given society scales proportionally to number of people involved in them.

However, the power of private companies (certain sector) in a given society is proportional to revenue of that sector.

Since the power of unions in monetary terms can be bounded from above by total wages in the sector, we can see that this is always less than the revenue of the sector.

In other words, in capital intensive industries, unions have less relative power.

The point is, the "willingness of some industry to live" is the interest of more people than just employees of that industry. It's also all the people taking a cut one way or another, that is owners, rentiers and potentially all the people involved in providing assets for the industry.

Re: California bans private prisons

#493

Post by jMyles »

js8 wrote: post #492
55orolder wrote: post #185

I find it fascinating that private prisons draw such ire while the prison guard union draws so little, when the prison guard union has all the exact same incentives and is drastically more powerful. California would have had legal marijuana a decade sooner except for lobbing by the union, they're a major force for mandatory minimum sentences and tougher sentencing in general. This seems like a trivial easy-PR win for…

Actually, in democratic capitalism, unions in private companies are always less powerful than private companies themselves. The power of unions (for a certain sector) in a given society scales proportionally to number of people involved in them. However, the power of private companies (certain sector) in a given society is proportional to revenue of that sector. Since the power of unions in monetary terms can be boun…

The union in question is a public sector union, though, so it's not obvious how to apply your (correct, at least to my eyes) analysis.

Re: California bans private prisons

#494

Post by whiddershins »

smhost wrote: post #486
whiddershins wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When police go on a “slow down” recorded reports to the police should naturally decrease.

> In our analyses, we examine how crime under-reporting may bias the results. We employ precinct fixed-effects to address time-invariant sources of under-reporting, such as communities’ varying histories of police distrust. We then model time-variant sources of under-reporting biases, such as those caused by the killing of Eric Garner and/or the heightened conflict between protesters and police. Model (5) in Fig. 3 c…

It’s hard for me to see how they can control for police slowdown. In most cases, in order for there to be a complaint the police have to:

Answer the phone Show up Take the person’a claim seriously, encourage the person to formally complain Actually write up the complaint Actually file it

I’m really skeptical those things wouldn’t be altered by a slowdown, it wouldn’t be much of a slowdown, in my opinion, without altering these things.

Edit: I understand it might be in principle possible to control for a slowdown, if you had many many other slowdowns to use as data points.

Re: California bans private prisons

#495

Post by jMyles »

philwelch wrote: post #439
55orolder wrote: post #185

I find it fascinating that private prisons draw such ire while the prison guard union draws so little, when the prison guard union has all the exact same incentives and is drastically more powerful. California would have had legal marijuana a decade sooner except for lobbing by the union, they're a major force for mandatory minimum sentences and tougher sentencing in general. This seems like a trivial easy-PR win for…

Going after public sector unions at all is extremely difficult. The most successful attempt to do so that I'm aware of was Gov. Scott Walker's in Wisconsin. And even he didn't go after the law enforcement unions. (It might be possible to split off the police unions from the prison guard unions, but it's not clear to me that it is.) Law enforcement unions are one of the few American institutions with completely bipart…

It might be true that, for some legislators, the fear of speaking truth to this particular power is one of public disorder. I don't think there's evidence to support that fear, but that doesn't mean it's not a motivating factor.

A larger motivating factor - and this is pure speculation - might be more closely related to angering an institution with such a capacity for unchecked initiation of violence (ie, that ones person, home, or family may be in danger of direct violence).

Re: California bans private prisons

#496

Post by js8 »

philwelch wrote: post #439
55orolder wrote: post #185

I find it fascinating that private prisons draw such ire while the prison guard union draws so little, when the prison guard union has all the exact same incentives and is drastically more powerful. California would have had legal marijuana a decade sooner except for lobbing by the union, they're a major force for mandatory minimum sentences and tougher sentencing in general. This seems like a trivial easy-PR win for…

Going after public sector unions at all is extremely difficult. The most successful attempt to do so that I'm aware of was Gov. Scott Walker's in Wisconsin. And even he didn't go after the law enforcement unions. (It might be possible to split off the police unions from the prison guard unions, but it's not clear to me that it is.) Law enforcement unions are one of the few American institutions with completely bipart…

"Law enforcement unions are one of the few American institutions with completely bipartisan protection. Democrats don't go after them because Democrats are pro-union. Republicans don't go after them because Republicans are pro-police."

Perhaps your "democracy" needs more than 2 parties.

"What happens if police officers and prison guards go on strike?"

The American culture is very antagonistic. In democratic societies, which are less antagonistic, this would become a matter of new public consensus much sooner before they would go on actual strike (there are many forms of strike and some of them do not involve stopping all work, for example, work-to-rule).

Re: California bans private prisons

#497

Post by philwelch »

jMyles wrote: post #495
philwelch wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going after public sector unions at all is extremely difficult. The most successful attempt to do so that I'm aware of was Gov. Scott Walker's in Wisconsin. And even he didn't go after the law enforcement unions. (It might be possible to split off the police unions from the prison guard unions, but it's not clear to me that it is.) Law enforcement unions are one of the few American institutions with completely bipart…

It might be true that, for some legislators, the fear of speaking truth to this particular power is one of public disorder. I don't think there's evidence to support that fear, but that doesn't mean it's not a motivating factor. A larger motivating factor - and this is pure speculation - might be more closely related to angering an institution with such a capacity for unchecked initiation of violence (ie, that ones p…

I doubt that it would escalate even to that, but you never know.

Re: California bans private prisons

#498

Post by philwelch »

js8 wrote: post #496
philwelch wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going after public sector unions at all is extremely difficult. The most successful attempt to do so that I'm aware of was Gov. Scott Walker's in Wisconsin. And even he didn't go after the law enforcement unions. (It might be possible to split off the police unions from the prison guard unions, but it's not clear to me that it is.) Law enforcement unions are one of the few American institutions with completely bipart…

"Law enforcement unions are one of the few American institutions with completely bipartisan protection. Democrats don't go after them because Democrats are pro-union. Republicans don't go after them because Republicans are pro-police." Perhaps your "democracy" needs more than 2 parties. "What happens if police officers and prison guards go on strike?" The American culture is very antagonistic. In democratic societies…

Our politics are antagonistic, and that makes everything harder for sure. For that matter, so are our police!

Re: California bans private prisons

#499

Post by js8 »

jMyles wrote: post #493
js8 wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, in democratic capitalism, unions in private companies are always less powerful than private companies themselves. The power of unions (for a certain sector) in a given society scales proportionally to number of people involved in them. However, the power of private companies (certain sector) in a given society is proportional to revenue of that sector. Since the power of unions in monetary terms can be boun…

The union in question is a public sector union, though, so it's not obvious how to apply your (correct, at least to my eyes) analysis.

I think for public sector, we have to look at it on the state level. Using the same analysis, in a democratic society, one vote has in theory more power than membership in a public sector unions, because with that vote you can decide more things than just wages of public employees.

I suspect the American culture of "being tough on crime" isn't really about prison-employee unions, but has historical roots in the colonization of the American frontier.

Re: California bans private prisons

#500

Post by paulcole »

55orolder wrote: post #185

I find it fascinating that private prisons draw such ire while the prison guard union draws so little, when the prison guard union has all the exact same incentives and is drastically more powerful. California would have had legal marijuana a decade sooner except for lobbing by the union, they're a major force for mandatory minimum sentences and tougher sentencing in general. This seems like a trivial easy-PR win for…

> This seems like a trivial easy-PR win for some legislators

Imagine a layperson read a news article about a complex topic in your field and instantly discovered a trivial easy win.

What are the odds they’d be correct?

Post reply on HN