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

581–590 of 646 posts

Re: California bans private prisons

#581

Post by georgiecasey »

patricius wrote: post #552
artificialLimbs wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I’ve heard ideas that prisons could be voluntary in a completely free society. First, a lot of people who have gone to prison for victimless crimes (using and/or selling drugs for instance) would no longer go to prison. Second, people who have committed violent crimes may choose to go to prison to “work off their debt” and show willingness to atone for their crimes. One could imagine that many employers, businesses a…

Voluntary prisons? HN can be seriously devoid of reality sometimes

Re: California bans private prisons

#582

Post by thrwaway3489 »

squiggleblaz wrote: post #514
thrwaway3489 wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the primary issue anyone has with private prisons the same one we have with defense contractors: that they might, would, or do subvert the system to get innocent people imprisoned or their prison terms extended in the case of private prisons, or promote wars America doesn't want or need in the case of defense contractors? What I mean is nobody really cares if prisons buy commercial toilet paper, for example. (A…

> So why are innocent black people jailed? Well, to fill prison beds, apparently. That is one of the reasons that people don't like private prisons. Utter nonsense. Black people are jailed for being black in America because American police are racist and American legislators are racist and American media are racist and American prosecutors are racist and American judges are racist. And then, because of this, black pe…

fair comment. if you increase quotas for number of arrests then the racist cops will just pick random black people to arrest because they're racist, can make something up, and a racist judge will believe them.

Re: California bans private prisons

#583

Post by nullc »

Pelam wrote: post #569
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…

I would like to have an explanation why "going after the unions" is a thing and what it means in this context? I can understand for example limiting striking by law or similar ordnances to uphold order and democracy. Is this all the parent is talking about? But isn't a union basically a private organisation formed by citizens by their own free will? What does it mean for a political organization, eg a party, to go af…

Isn't a private prison a private organisation formed by citizens by their own free will? :)

The unions and their membership have a financial conflict of interest when it comes to public public that impacts incarceration rate. Prison unions have, for example, lobbied extensively to keep various drugs criminalized in states where the public was going in another direction.

It's obviously a difficult subject with a lot of concerns to balance, but the posters here are just arguing that the problems of private prisons are not all unique to private prisons-- the employees of public prisons (and their orgs) have some of the same kinds of conflicts of interest.

Re: California bans private prisons

#584

Post by DanBC »

archie2 wrote: post #434
DanBC wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget that the US's rapid access to all the healthcare the patient wants leads to huge amounts of harm in the form of over-testing, over-diagnosis, and over-treatment.

Are you actually arguing that people wanting too much healthcare is a bad thing?

Yes. It's not just me, it's doctors too.

Take 1000 men over 50 and give them PSA screening for prostate cancer for about 11 years.

Take 1000 different men over 50 and don't give them PSA screening for prostate cancer for about 11 years.

For the group without screening about 7 die from prostate cancer. But for the group who do have screening we see the same number of deaths. The screening hasn't prevented deaths from prostate cancer.

The group without screening didn't have any false alarms and didn't have any needless biopsies. 160 men in the group with screening had false alarms and unnecessary biopsies. 20 men in the screening group had treatment (which can include incontinence and impotence) for non-progressive prostate cancer.

https://www.harding-center.mpg.de/en/fact-boxes/early-detect...

Over-testing leads to over-diagnosis which leads to over treatment, and harm is caused at each step.

Margaret McCartney or Gerd Giggerenzer talk about this.

Re: California bans private prisons

#585

Post by yostrovs »

Pelam wrote: post #569
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…

I would like to have an explanation why "going after the unions" is a thing and what it means in this context? I can understand for example limiting striking by law or similar ordnances to uphold order and democracy. Is this all the parent is talking about? But isn't a union basically a private organisation formed by citizens by their own free will? What does it mean for a political organization, eg a party, to go af…

You are aware that public unions demand things from the government, making things difficult for said government. They consume a great deal of public moneys and demand special working conditions, usually above those received by employees in private companies doing similar work. And they give out money to politicians to make their concerns a priority. So if you care about other things than the pay of policemen, you'll have to fight the unions.

Re: California bans private prisons

#586

Post by philwelch »

Pelam wrote: post #569
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…

I would like to have an explanation why "going after the unions" is a thing and what it means in this context? I can understand for example limiting striking by law or similar ordnances to uphold order and democracy. Is this all the parent is talking about? But isn't a union basically a private organisation formed by citizens by their own free will? What does it mean for a political organization, eg a party, to go af…

It’s more a question of curbing their corrupting influence on politics. You might notice that the US has policies that result in mass incarceration, and that US police are far more likely than police in other countries to use lethal force. Part of this is because American law and policy is heavily influenced by police unions and prison guard unions, who favor their own interests over the public interest.

It’s also not purely a matter of private association. Often there are laws encouraging or mandating collective bargaining for certain public sector jobs. These laws are often what keeps unions in business, since those laws protect them and allow them to eg sign collective bargaining agreements that effectively require public employees to join the union (or at least pay dues to it) as a condition of keeping their jobs. It was the repeal of these laws that Gov. Walker faced political pushback for in 2011.

Re: California bans private prisons

#587

Post by charlescearl »

The first public academic to my knowledge to begin crystalizing the problem of private prisons and the prison industrial complex was Angela Davis [1] -- I first remember hearing her address this in a 1998 lecture at Northwestern.

Ruth Wilson [2,3] has worked for years analyzing and working to end the expansion and privatization of California's prisons, through both academic and grass roots efforts [4]. Her "Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California" [5] book is both accessible and rigorous, I highly recommend it. I am a bit shocked that their and foundational work were not mentioned in the piece.

There's a discussion between Davis and Wilson here [6] where they surface the mass incarceration/private prison issue, and detail the pathology of California's prison system.

[1]https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1583225811/ref=dbs_a_def_r...

[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/magazine/prison-abolition...

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTPjC-7EDkc

[4] http://criticalresistance.org/

[5] https://www.amazon.com/Golden-Gulag-Opposition-Globalizing-C...

[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGPVPrJGXsY

Re: California bans private prisons

#588

Post by [deleted] »

calcifer wrote: post #162
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…

> If their prisoner recidivism rate after 3 years was 10% lower than the average public prison, they would get a 20% bonus. Ah, so the people who profit off of others' misery would be able to profit even further if they treat prisoners like human beings? Great incentive indeed. > If someone ever proposes such a system, they'll be branded a supporter of "private prisons". You propose such a system and I don't see how…

[deleted]

Re: California bans private prisons

#589

Post by theptip »

cstejerean wrote: post #524
johnchristopher wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Strongly disagree. One of the great and unusual things about the HN community is that opinions are usually based on evidence. Asking someone to provide the evidence they are basing their opinion on is a great way to cut through all the noise on a subject you don't know well.

Re: California bans private prisons

#590

Post by stdbrouw »

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…

But it can be equally malicious to just drop generic potential shortcomings of scientific studies, without any attempt to figure out whether they apply to the specific study under discussion.
Post reply on HN