Live data from Hacker News

California bans private prisons

theguardian.com

631–640 of 646 posts

Re: California bans private prisons

#631
post #496

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…

But the US has relatively few strikes despite being so 'antagonistic'.

Re: California bans private prisons

#632
post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm allowed to ask "What should we do about the Jewish Question" in a manner that appears civil, it's still not a civil discussion, regardless of the tone. If someone responds "don't you dare ask the Jewish Question," they aren't at fault for the lack of civility; the premise of the question was deeply uncivil. Contextually, if someone on HN is asking "what should we do about the prisoners?" about people detained…

Denunciatory rhetoric breaks the site guidelines regardless of what you're denouncing. If you hurl the buzzword weapons of the moment, it will take the thread further into political flamewar regardless of whether your position is right or wrong. Yelling a right position doesn't help; it will only trigger others into yelling their position back. We know what sort of comments take internet forums further into flamewar.…

> What good does it do if this place burns down?

Based on a lot of the comments here that _do_ pass moderation because they aren't "denunciatory" while still being awful, I think it will do good.

> we know as much about it as the people doing the lecturing, couldn't care less about that word, and aren't motivated by the concept.

Pompous ass. You care too much about keeping your prissy little internet forum tidy to use any sense of morality and judgement in moderation.

> If you're bringing up "the Jewish Question" as a way of insinuating something about HN moderation, that's pretty offensive.

Hah, I wasn't, but nice own. Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.

Can't wait until you start going on about "good moderation is making both sides angry" as if my moral position is equivocal with a far-right one.

Re: California bans private prisons

#633
post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Now I'm even more confused because we're mixing positive and normative discussions :/

Parties are still highly effective at consolidating power in countries with many parties.

Re: California bans private prisons

#634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 do…

Yes, but it's become in the past couple years an out dated point in major cities (Boston, Philly, LA) where activist prosecutors attempting to prosecute fewer crimes and hand out lighter sentences are now being stymied by (appointed!) judges.

The problem with focusing on any particular role is that the other parts of the system will step in to force punishment.

Re: California bans private prisons

#635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

X got the drugs from somewhere. At some point, someone paid someone to get the drug. This enables Y. > if X would prefer to buy from a legal seller but none is available If I want to buy a nuke, but one is not available from a legal seller, does that mean I am not responsible for paying an unscrupulous seller to furnish that for me? > Also, you can get locked up for smoking weed that you grew yourself and had no inte…

I buy guns. The gun lobby, funded in part from gun manufacturer profits, fights laws that prevent mass shootings. Am I enabling mass shootings?

Yes, especially if you're buying guns for recreation. If it's for survival and you live in the middle of the wilderness, perhaps you can make a case for it.

Oops, was that not the answer you were trying to bait?

Re: California bans private prisons

#636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Statements like the commenter above are not universal truths. Certainly, some people believe the purpose of prison is rehabilitation. That is neither a universal belief however, nor the focus of our legal system. Many people believe the point of prison is punishment, just as the point of fines (like a speeding ticket, for example) are to make someone hurt financially, not to recoup costs (one person speeding…

It can be both at the same time. A step of the reformation process is for the inmate to understand the need for the punishment. It doesn't mean that there is no punishment, just that blind retribution is insufficient to form a perspective for the inmate and society. Most inmates are not going to stay in prison for their whole life, so of obviously you try to maximize rehabilitation. I do believe it to be a universal…

> I do believe it to be a universal truth that a reformist approach is superior.

Exactly. This is your belief, and clearly not everyone believes it.

It sure could be both at the same time. Many people believe that too. It could also only be one or the other. Lots think those ways. There is no universally accepted truth here, and pretending like there is is not fruitful.

Re: California bans private prisons

#637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because California is a terribly run state, and one third of your population is on Medi-Cal. You literally have the same problems as Canada.

Here's me in Washington where I had a severely injured wrist after a car accident, was advised to get PT immediately... ... and had no PT within the county with a I guess we're close to Canada though, so maybe it's contagious?

People wait 6 months or more in Canada.

Re: California bans private prisons

#638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Canada doesn't even have socialized drug insurance for prescriptions and it costs $100 and in the UK $38 It's kind of easy for a country to dictate drug prices when they had no hand in developing them. Now show me a country like the US that develops just as many drugs. Ah, you can't, there is none.

According to this article, the biggest R&D spenders in pharma are EU firms: https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/data-insights/othe...

And check where these R&D spenders make the most money in the world. In the US. There would be no such level of investment if the US market did not exist.

Re: California bans private prisons

#639
post #328
post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To both of your points of having more choice and lobbying: Market considerations matter.

Could you elaborate? I don't understand what you're getting at.

Apple can't lobby to make the "Official phone of the United States" simply because there are significant hurdles in place.

Government procurement is a very different beast than most people would be used too. Imagine an organization tasked to deliver the world, but while spending the absolute minimum, and without showing anything that could remotely resemble favoritism in the process.

That's Government. The supplier must be reliable, yet everyone should have an equal footing from which to have a chance to grab a contract.

It has to be cheap, yet must satisfy every requirement necessary to fulfill the procurement's intended purpose.

There must an always also be at least the appearance of propriety in all transactions, or losing bidders have every incentive to challenge the integrity of the decision.

Given the significant hurdles represented by having to jump through all the hoops in winning a Government supply contract, it simply makes more sense to focus mercantile efforts elsewhere where returns can be made with far less risk.

Prisons on the other hand, run into the worst of both worlds. Private prisons don't make money without convicts. So they might lobby for increased mandatory incarceration as a punishment for violation of new laws. You also have operations where prisoners are exploited as slave labor (which is explicitly allowed by the Constitution). Which if you really sit and think about it, makes the threat of increased incarceration as a result of profit-motive for the private prison industry that much more dangerous, as by definition, you are delegating people to a more abusable status in the eyes of the law.

Hard-on-crime stances notwithstanding (I'm not taking sides, just pointing it out), one really needs to take into account on what spending on prisons really says about our society.

Begone yee incarceree! Ye has't offended in the eyes of Man and God, and to the Pit do we consign'st thee til through suffering that debt is repaid!

Vs.

Your offense has brought you here, being due to the threat to civil society your reckless and thoughtless behavior represents. Through the insecurity you suffer through here, it is our hope that you will come to understand the fragility of the civic construct, and come to see the error of your ways.

Vs. Yet still:

Clearly, our society has failed to incorporate/integrate you in a safe or constructive way. Here you must remain for a period until such time as it is deemed necessary to recompensense for the crime you have committed, or until it can be observed beyond a reasonable doubt that you no longer represent a threat to the civil life outside these walls.

A prison by it's nature does not function as anything else than a container or isolator of men and their proclivities. To create a profit making enterprise around that under the guise of "innovation shall make this system better" is foolhardy, seeing as the law, and punishments for breaking it often preclude any way to operate a prison or treat the offender in a "innovative" way.

The price of a man's years is set by the people already, that is. No private prison can innovate on that except by changing or altering the suffering they experience therein contained from the rest of society. Their Wardens' alone reaping the benefit of the custody of society's delinquents.

Furthermore, even the vaunted Market can be severely damaged by the "free labor" potential generated by prison inmates.

I just see far too much potential for negatives and far too few possibilities through which one could wave a magic wand and both dispel the wickedness of the alleged offenders heart (if it actually exists), and also extracting something resembling justice for the victims should it be appropriate.

Post reply on HN