California bans private prisons • Hacker News Board

Re: California bans private prisons

#611

Post by SkyBelow » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 3:04 PM UTC

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…

>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.

And yet such numbers are dropped all the time. I also do not see callouts for number drops being consistently applied. For example in political subreddits sees number drops without callouts when it supports the lean of the subreddit and number drops with callouts when it does not.

Criticism of science seems to be unequally applied, and given how important equal application of criticism is to science being reliable, it creates a reliability problem.

Re: California bans private prisons

#612

Post by stdbrouw » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 3:05 PM UTC

rank0 wrote: post #605

stdbrouw wrote: post #590

Earlier 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 completely disagree. You believe skepticism is just as bad as blind trust?

If you think broad skepticism or criticism of a scientific study based on class characteristics is admissible (some statistical investigations are poorly conducted, so this one might be poor too), why not trust based on class characteristics (scientific articles in Nature tend to be really good, so this one might be good too)?

You're right, I don't think either of these options is better than the other.

Re: California bans private prisons

#613

Post by Paul-ish » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 3:06 PM UTC

throwawayjava wrote: post #505

Paul-ish wrote: post #502

In "Locked In" John Pfaff makes the point that private prisons are not the problem. It is a more nuanced problem, but prosecutors play a large part in our national incarceration problems. Definitely recommend the read (or listen as an audiobook as I did).

> but prosecutors play a large part in our national incarceration problems The problem is pro-punishment politicians. Singling out any particular office/position misses the point. Even when judges practice discretion, pro-punishment legislators step in and introduce mandatory minimums. And even when prosecutors practice discretion, pro-punishment judges will step in and force them to prosecute cases that the prosecut…

Pfaff has pretty good data to back up his claim. He looks at legislation. He looks at mandatory minimums. Everyone plays their part, but prosecutors have a lot of power over sentencing. Plea deals play a role here.

And in many places prosecutors are politicians in a sense, because they are elected. One recommendation is to go back to appointing prosecutors rather than electing them.

So no, singling out prosecutors doesn't miss the point. It is an important point.

Re: California bans private prisons

#614

Post by SkyBelow » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 3:09 PM UTC

willyt wrote: post #600

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…

Why would a union want more prisons? Surely the whole point of a union is to lobby for better pay and conditions for its individual members, I don't see what the incentive is for the union to create more prisons, to get more union members? Why?

More members equal more political power.

More members equal more funding.

More members equal more possibility of existing members to become senior.

Re: California bans private prisons

#615

Post by SkyBelow » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 3:11 PM UTC

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…

Will we still have private companies making money off of public prisons by offering different services? Will there still be individuals earning a paycheck by working at prisons? Both of these groups will have similar incentives as companies running private prisons.

Re: California bans private prisons

#616

Post by undersuit » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 3:16 PM UTC

georgiecasey wrote: post #581

patricius wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's a wonderful libertarian fantasy and it's really tugging at my heart strings.

Re: California bans private prisons

#617

Post by throwawayjava » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 3:47 PM UTC

js8 wrote: post #537

throwawayjava wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. ...except when you can both be a member of a union and also exercise your vote. I wasn't aware that in the USA joining a public sector union meant giving up your right to vote ;-)

No, the inequality always holds, your vote has always larger weight in society than your union membership. I think it seems counter-intuitive to you but you cannot articulate why. I was also surprised when I realized it. Or think about it this way: All citizens in democratic society are free to enter any number of associations that advocate for their interests. For example, unions. But membership in these association…

I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make here :(

> your vote has always larger weight in society than your union membership.

Yes, but the next step in your logical deduction is flawed because union membership does not necessarily dilute the power of your vote to signal other preferences (at least in countries with secret ballots and no proxy voting).

You're comparing these two things as if there's some sort of trade-off or mutual exclusivity. There isn't, especially in countries where politics is dominated by two parties such as the USA.

Here's how those mechanics tend to play out in the USA. A union voter leverages their union membership to make kings in the primaries. Then, after winnowing the field to a list of candidates who exclusively support their union's major priorities, union members are free to use their vote to exercise preference on other issues. That's not hypothetical -- it's exactly what happens in most US states with strong public sector LEO unions.

> But membership in these associations doesn't "add up" to more power

But this is obviously false when broadened to include all associations.

Politics in literally every modern democracy is dominated by associations called political parties. That's not an accident, and it's not like that status quo happened without opposition. A lot of politicians in the history of democracy have attempted to limit the role of associations in democratic processes, and they mostly failed.

I don't really understand the argument you're making. Maybe your logical deductions are bulletproof, but in that case, there must be something wrong with your premises. Because hundreds of years of extraordinarily compelling empirical evidence contradict your final conclusion.

Large associations of voters really do have more power than the sum of their votes. Maybe not "theoretically", but certainly "actually" and "empirically".

Re: California bans private prisons

#618

Post by birdyrooster » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #415

birdyrooster wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incredibly easy to game. A bad actor would create a prison which focused only on convict selection, and fully ignored the bonus for recidivism and pumped people through. Prison not only needs to be ethical for individuals, but for the rest of society.

So you invented a loophole and then said it would be trivial to game if they can use that loophole. Prisons aren’t universities, there isn’t an admissions process.

I didn't invent the loophole, the parent comment did and I was pointing it out.

Re: California bans private prisons

#619

Post by ende » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 4:17 PM UTC

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…

This is a really big problem in America and it needs to be addressed head on, regardless of how uncomfortable the consequences may be.

LEOs hold a sacred role of trust in our society - they maintain the potential application of the use of lethal force. With that power must come the most severe of guardrails, to which unionization is completely antithetical. Our civilian control of the military is internationally lauded, but we lack full civil control of our own law enforcement.

I think the way to go about this is to break up the law enforcement departments into smaller scoped independent roles with enough potential redundancy to be able to institute reforms via divide and conquer. Remake law enforcement from the ground up in this way, and deny the new institutions public unionization by law.

If the existing police unions strike, they must be dealt with as severely as mutinous armed forces would be; they should be subject to a court marshal form of adjudication with the same penalties that a military officer would face for desertion and endangering public safety.

Start building new parallel law enforcement institutions now, prepare for how to maintain civil order in the face of a strike, then start dissolving the old institutions. It’d also probably be wise for the FBI to maintain a comprehensive database of federal, state and local LEOs in case some go underground and attempt to undermine these efforts through domestic terrorism.

Re: California bans private prisons

#620

Post by ende » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 4:28 PM UTC

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…

You are correct that the US needs a multi-party system. The lack of recognition/appreciation of the extent that the two-party system shapes and constrains every single public discourse such as this one is frankly amazing.

The current dynamic is akin to children playing one feuding parent against the other in a broken overly-adversarial marriage. You need a minimum of about 4-5 independent voices in order to facilitate civil public discourse.