The sad and bitter truth: as the anecdotal Silicon Valley startup CEO is a closet right leaning Republican donor, and with the amount of military money up for grabs, I'm surprised to not see a flurry of startups "disrupting" prisons yet /0.5s
California bans private prisons
601–610 of 646 posts
Re: California bans private prisons
#602Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't agree with this comment at all. Skepticism isn't denying the claim or advocating an alternative one, it is promoting thoroughness and responsibility. The uninspected claim is quite a bit more dangerous.
Re: California bans private prisons
#603Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Wait, what? Ideally, citing your sources should be done without being asked. And, when asked, people want to know which sources you have used, not the ones they can find for themselves. So even if you think it's common knowledge, we want to see the base of your thinking.
> Ideally, citing your sources should be done without being asked.
Do you have a source for why that would be ideal ?
Re: California bans private prisons
#604I 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…
> 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,
Much of the concept is that the prison's are at 200% capacity because of the perverse incentives for the state (prosecutors, police, judges) to fulfill the private contract minimums.
Mandatory minimums and the 3 strike rule are suspected to be related to private prisons contracts.
Re: California bans private prisons
#605Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I completely disagree. You believe skepticism is just as bad as blind trust?
Re: California bans private prisons
#606Calif seems to be on fire these days (no pun intended). They are passing one great legislation after another.
Re: California bans private prisons
#607Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's probably necessary. and i must ask, you've studied philosophy? that's the only time i see people talking about "necessary and sufficient conditions"
I have, yeah. Thing is, private prisons are 10% of prisons. Which means public prisons are 90% of prisons, and so public-sector prison guards are at least 90% of prison guards (maybe 100% if they get the state to require collective bargaining in private prisons). That means a majority of the special interests are there either way. There is a conflict of interest with private prisons, but private prison owners are a s…
none of that matters, there's a conflict of interest with private prisons, and they shouldn't exist.
That there are things we also need to fix with public prisons is an orthogonal issue. private prisons are clearly a problem. The idea of commercializing the locking up of human beings is horrifying from a moral perspective.
Re: California bans private prisons
#608Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry I didn't provide an exhaustive list of all the evils in the prison vendor system I'm aware of. I know about the horrendously expensive phone calls and the move toward video conferencing in place of in person visitation and the massive over charging for commissary items and the nearly slave 'wages' prisoners are paid for jobs they have no option to reject. I just didn't think I needed to provide an exacting list…
I think I was too negative in that comment. I apologize. I do think you're minimizing the issue in the way you talk about it, but the line about you not being aware of problems wasn't justified in the slightest and was just rude.
Yeah, could have been a bit less snippy myself. This whole thread has been super frustrating though with so many responses that to me boil down to "why didn't they tackle the whole gordian knot of the prison industrial complex?"
Re: California bans private prisons
#609Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't agree with this comment at all. Skepticism isn't denying the claim or advocating an alternative one, it is promoting thoroughness and responsibility. The uninspected claim is quite a bit more dangerous.
This particular flavor of skepticism does not promote thoroughness and responsibility, in fact it promotes laziness: "Why read (or even skim) through the article when I can just state these five ways in which the article might be bad and therefore its argument void?"