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

521–530 of 646 posts

Re: California bans private prisons

#521

Post by artificialLimbs »

geowwy wrote: post #512
warent wrote: post #40

> Private prison companies used to view California as one of their fastest-growing markets. This is such a bizarre and twisted sentence to hear without a hint of irony. It's like dream/nightmare logic except in real life. In 100 years private prisons are going to be a hideous stain on our history and this is such a huge step in the right direction that it really makes me proud to be living in California and supportin…

Well done California. Hopefully this is a step towards abolishing the prison system.

I've entertained the idea of abolishing prisons in my head, but I can't imagine what we would do as an alternative. Suggestions?

Re: California bans private prisons

#522

Post by _qhtn »

kodachi wrote: post #510
_qhtn wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

On contrast, your ad hominem argument is not appreciated by me.

> ad hominem

Hardly-

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

> Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

You failed at the "genuine discussion" part by citing pop econ horseshit.

Re: California bans private prisons

#523

Post by trentmb »

dang wrote: post #515
_qhtn wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ouch, please don't. We ban accounts that do personal attacks like this, and I don't want to ban you. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I "attacked" pop econ bullshit, not a person.

Re: California bans private prisons

#524

Post by cstejerean »

johnchristopher wrote: post #520
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…

> 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. edit: Do you have any articles to recommend that would shed some lights on this matter ? Do you have some sources ? (I don't live in the US, but I find the idea that guards somehow lobby fascinating)

So this isn’t directed at you in particular but I don’t understand this “do you have any sources?” for stuff that’s one search away. If it was some obscure hard to find information published in some journal I would understand it, but this in this case

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=california+prison+guards+lobby

And yet I see this constantly on almost every thread. What is it with HN and asking for sources on everything?

Re: California bans private prisons

#525

Post by chroma »

tlb wrote: post #448
ShorsHammer wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

That you might be a good security researcher? From https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/03/the_security_...:

> Uncle Milton Industries has been selling ant farms to children since 1956. Some years ago, I remember opening one up with a friend. There were no actual ants included in the box. Instead, there was a card that you filled in with your address, and the company would mail you some ants. My friend expressed surprise that you could get ants sent to you in the mail.

> I replied: "What's really interesting is that these people will send a tube of live ants to anyone you tell them to."

Re: California bans private prisons

#526

Post by cwkoss »

tathougies wrote: post #423
packet_nerd wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Illegal drugs channel money into large organized crime syndicates An excellent argument for decriminalizing them. > All drug offenses are violent. Illegal... First you say "all", then "illegal". Which is it?

If using a drug puts you in the category of someone who has committed a 'drug offense', then you have -- by definition -- taken an illegal drug. > An excellent argument for decriminalizing them. Indeed, but that doesn't automatically exculpate those who have -- during prohibition -- directly caused violence by their money. In my opinion, they should all be in jail for murder. For life.

Should people who bought bananas in the 20's have been jailed for life?

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

They certainly caused violence with their money much more directly than modern drug users.

Re: California bans private prisons

#527

Post by cf498 »

throwawayjava wrote: post #508
EdwardDiego wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when the prison guard union has all the exact same incentives and is drastically more powerful. Could you please provide me some examples? I figure if California's prisons were 200% of capacity, there's no shortage of work for the prison guards anyway.

> I figure if California's prisons were 200% of capacity, there's no shortage of work for the prison guards anyway. I'm not sure how/why you figure that, or how it's at all relevant. I'm not sure how/why you figure that because "over capacity" != "will build new prisons / hire new guards". I.e., it's not at all impossible for there to be prisons that are over-capacity and also a decline in the number of prison guard…

Or they could just work towards better working conditions? Unions dont really have the growth incentive private entities do. Prison guards are extremely far from running out of work, quite the opposite is true and their members also suffer under the poor working conditions of an chronically understaffed and underpaid sector. They are risking their life because politicians think overcrowding prisons isnt a problem.

I mean I get the initial point, some police unions are an especially vile proponents of an expansion into a police state, its just not really about working conditions. Its political lobbying. In Germany you can see it every time more competences for the police are discussed in parliament. You have some police unions giving legit feedback if someone bothers to ask them, how those competences are a bad idea and are not needed. And then you have speakers for other police union (with a catchy union name to seem more important) where you can see they have the right party membership and are looking for a career in politics. As a result you can see them in every news report that wants to bring across a certain message.

Re: California bans private prisons

#528

Post by dang »

trentmb wrote: post #523
dang wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ouch, please don't. We ban accounts that do personal attacks like this, and I don't want to ban you. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I "attacked" pop econ bullshit, not a person.

"It lets everyone know it's safe to ignore you" is a personal attack. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd really appreciate it.

Re: California bans private prisons

#529

Post by jimclegg »

jimclegg wrote: post #517
dougmany wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the lazy: Pfaff is convinced that aggressive prosecution is the biggest cause of over-incarceration. His argument here is compelling. He notes that while incarceration rates began to climb in the 1980s as a response to rising crime, those trend lines continued through the Nineties, even though crime was steadily falling. Why did that happen? Examining all the relevant variables (crime reports, arrests, charges fi…

The change in monetary system caused a cascade of despair. https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

More specifically here is the incarceration rate change when the monetary system changed.

https://wtfhappenedin1971home.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/in...

PS. Don't downvote me if you don't know economics morons.

Re: California bans private prisons

#530

Post by lightgreen »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #521
geowwy wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well done California. Hopefully this is a step towards abolishing the prison system.

I've entertained the idea of abolishing prisons in my head, but I can't imagine what we would do as an alternative. Suggestions?

If it was nonviolent crime, then island where convicted can live with shops, houses, internet, trains and parks and local elected administration and cctv, but cannot go back to the rest of the world.

But if it is a serious violent crime, it should still be prison. Comfortable like in Europe or better, but preventing convicted from doing harm to others.

It should not be a punishment. It should be just an isolation. Separation of bad people from good people.

Post reply on HN