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

621–630 of 646 posts

Re: California bans private prisons

#621

Post by yug_blop »

ende wrote: post #620
js8 wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 facilitat…

> You need a minimum of about 4-5 independent voices in order to facilitate civil public discourse.

Has this been demonstrated through mathematical/statistical models?

Re: California bans private prisons

#622

Post by dang »

ancorro wrote: post #566
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

As an outsider reading this thread I couldn't help but laugh at this. Galanwe said phry was "very malicious", which is actually and not just tenuously a personal attack. Do you plan to delete their comment as well? Interesting standards on HN.

Please don't interpret as "standards" what is typically a simple case of us seeing one comment and not the other. We don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted here. If you run across something that didn't get moderated when it should have, the likeliest explanation is that we just didn't see it.

Edit: I've tracked down the comment you're referring to and indeed, no moderator saw it. I've replied to it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20964408. In the future, if there's a comment you're concerned about, you should either flag it or email us at hn@ycombinator.com.

If you haven't checked specifically with us about a post, please don't draw conclusions about HN moderation—those are almost always non sequiturs. People usually jump to the idea that we secretly support the one side (where they didn't see us moderate) over the other side (where they did). That is reading patterns into randomness.

Edit: Also, could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. HN is a community. Users needn't use their real name, but do need some identity for others to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

Re: California bans private prisons

#623

Post by dang »

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…

Please don't introduce personal swipes like "malicious" into what's otherwise a fine HN comment. It usually provokes the person you're talking to into replying with worse; or if that doesn't happen, it causes other people to take your comment the wrong way (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20960084). It also breaks the site guideline against calling names in arguments:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: California bans private prisons

#624

Post by sbochins »

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…

Different issues. People tend to dislike the fact that we charge prisoners outrageous rates for calls, etc.

And I don’t remember prison guard unions being the ones principally pushing for 3 strike laws. Most of those went through when it was politically advantageous to be backing them, unlike now.

Re: California bans private prisons

#625

Post by opo »

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)

Here is some background on CA prison guard union:

>...The CCPOA is deeply involved in a variety of political activities. Most spending is done through political action committees.[citation needed] Although its membership is relatively small, representing only about one tenth the membership of the California Teachers Association, CCPOA political activity routinely exceeds that of all other labor unions in California. The union spends heavily on influencing political campaigns, and on lobbying legislators and other government officials. CCPOA also hires public relations firms and political polling firms.

... >Lobbying efforts and campaign contributions by the CCPOA have helped secure passage of numerous legislative bills favorable to union members, including bills that increase prison terms, member pay, and enforce current drug laws.

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

>...ROUGHLY HALF OF the money raised to oppose a ballot measure to legalize recreational marijuana in California is coming from police and prison guard groups, ...

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/18/ca-marijuana-measure/

Re: California bans private prisons

#626

Post by arcticbull »

kenhwang wrote: post #389
gerbilly wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many others in the US don't like the idea of subsidizing other people's healthcare for preventable or self-inflicted health complications. Who cares really? It costs a bit more to care for people in dollars and cents, but it fosters a better society, which everyone benefits from. Another case of people wanting to be freeriders.

Apparently enough people care enough. Otherwise this wouldn't be such a contentious debate topic.

Right but it reduces your cost as well, which is why it's so strange. It's cutting off your nose to spite the face.

Re: California bans private prisons

#627

Post by arcticbull »

mikekchar wrote: post #484
arcticbull wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatives under Harper started to align their policies more with Democrats and then with eventually Republicans. The gag orders on scientists, climate denial, private prisons, mandatory minimum sentences with a focus on drug crimes, slashing social programs, tightening up immigration and nationality rules, singling out muslims, and broad tax cuts without specific goals. This is the playbook of the US right / glob…

I've been out of Canada for 15 years, so I missed the whole Conservatives under Harper. However, I think to be fair wrt comparing today's Conservatives to Joe Clark's Conservatives, the latter organisation doesn't really exist any more. The Conservatives were down to 2 seats when they merged with Reform Party. I think that's where to you start to see the drift to the right. They had to actively kick out the really ex…

Thanks for the perspective. I spent about half the Harper years abroad, and while I remember the Progressives Conservatives and the Reform / Canadian Alliance parties merging back in what, 2003? I wasn't really paying enough attention to politics back then to understand the implications. I think to your point the Conservatives in the merger basically marketed themselves as a more moderate Reform party.

Re: California bans private prisons

#630

Post by js8 »

throwawayjava wrote: post #617
js8 wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 som…

I interpret the effect you mention differently, that there is simply not enough democracy.

If the government takes more input from associations than from voting, I think it's a reasonable conclusion. (See also my comment about tripartism above.)

But what seems to me closer to the truth is that people simply heavily underestimate the power of their vote.

Post reply on HN