Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That sounds pretty nefarious to me because the state has a duty of care for its citizens - of which this is a clear and flagrant abdication. Which part of it constitutes "a clear and flagrant abdication"? >At the end of the day this is the same thing - the state should be paying less when there's less crime. It should be incentivized to stop crime from happening in the first place. >It should be spending that money…
It's simpler just to make the privately run prisons illegal so as to avoid any moral hazards. If the facility is under utilized less investment will be needed in the future and conditions can be improved for existing inmates.
What are the moral hazards here? The people running the prisons aren't the ones sentencing/convicting criminals.
>If the facility is under utilized less investment will be needed in the future and conditions can be improved for existing inmates.
What's the difference between wasting money because the state didn't meet the minimum inmate quota, and wasting money because the state invested in a 1000 inmate prison but there's only 600 prisoners?