California bans private prisons and immigration detention centers (2019) • Hacker News Board

Re: California bans private prisons and immigration detention centers (2019)

#101

Post by Retric » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:14 PM UTC

lukifer wrote: post #91

ogre_codes wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private prisons have a financial incentive to detain inmates for as long as possible. The prison has some input into when a detainee is released (good behavior, etc) and private prisons have been observed abusing this power. Private prisons also have incentives to find ways to cut costs and often do so in ways which harm detainees. Private prisons also have incentive to lobby for longer mandatory prison terms regardl…

I'm in 100% agreement on the perverse incentives of private prisons; however it's worth noting that similar incentives exist for prison guard unions, even for publicly managed prisons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Correctional_Peace_... Abolishing private prisons is a good start, but we need much more drastic reform to the prison-industrial complex and failed "tough on crime" policies, particular in the r…

Prison guard unions have vastly less financial resources to work with and a wider range of issues they care about. They often brought up to deflect discussion, but simply operate at a order of magnitude smaller scale.

Re: California bans private prisons and immigration detention centers (2019)

#102

Post by specialist » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:16 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #30

This isn't about protecting prisoners or their rights, this is about protecting the jobs that the California Correctional Peace Officers Association controls and insuring no one else performs this task. Private prisons were forced into accepting CCPOA members but he union set forth in campaign after campaign to rid the state of private prisons. Back in May Newsom announced he was trying to reduce some of the in exces…

This 2019 article is about 2019-2020 AB32. Can you provide links to the more recent development, if you have them handy? Thanks. (Sorry, I don't often track CA State stuff.)

Edit: Is this the analysis you're referring to? https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/20/californias-private-pr...

Re: California bans private prisons and immigration detention centers (2019)

#103

Post by PopeDotNinja » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:17 PM UTC

bradly wrote: post #15

Would love to see California ban sales of goods made at private prisons as well. Or at least disclose it on the packaging so consumers can make a decision.

As I see it, cheap prison labor is legalized slavery. Maybe not cheap labor, too, but I haven’t thought about that. It’s horrible.

Re: California bans private prisons and immigration detention centers (2019)

#104

Post by Thlom » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:32 PM UTC

corty wrote: post #45

boomboomsubban wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>illegally Presumably illegal. There wasn't a state law banning it, and Buck vs. Bell technically still stands allowing state run compulsory sterilization.

There would still be various human rights treaties banning stuff like that.

Have the USA even ratified those?

Re: California bans private prisons and immigration detention centers (2019)

#105

Post by ogre_codes » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:43 PM UTC

lukifer wrote: post #91

ogre_codes wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private prisons have a financial incentive to detain inmates for as long as possible. The prison has some input into when a detainee is released (good behavior, etc) and private prisons have been observed abusing this power. Private prisons also have incentives to find ways to cut costs and often do so in ways which harm detainees. Private prisons also have incentive to lobby for longer mandatory prison terms regardl…

I'm in 100% agreement on the perverse incentives of private prisons; however it's worth noting that similar incentives exist for prison guard unions, even for publicly managed prisons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Correctional_Peace_... Abolishing private prisons is a good start, but we need much more drastic reform to the prison-industrial complex and failed "tough on crime" policies, particular in the r…

> Abolishing private prisons is a good start, but we need much more drastic reform to the prison-industrial complex and failed "tough on crime" policies, particular in the realms of drug policy, community investment, and mental health.

Yes, very much so.

Re: California bans private prisons and immigration detention centers (2019)

#106

Post by opo » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:50 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #101

lukifer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in 100% agreement on the perverse incentives of private prisons; however it's worth noting that similar incentives exist for prison guard unions, even for publicly managed prisons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Correctional_Peace_... Abolishing private prisons is a good start, but we need much more drastic reform to the prison-industrial complex and failed "tough on crime" policies, particular in the r…

Prison guard unions have vastly less financial resources to work with and a wider range of issues they care about. They often brought up to deflect discussion, but simply operate at a order of magnitude smaller scale.

>...They often brought up to deflect discussion, but simply operate at a order of magnitude smaller scale.

That is simply not correct.

>...In the 2016 election cycle, private prisons gave a record $1.6 million to candidates, parties and outside spending groups.

90% of that came from one company (GEO Group).

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=G7000

Now compare the private prison industry to the prison guard union in CA CCPOA(California Correctional Peace Officers Association).

>...These dues raise approximately $23 million each year, of which the CCPOA allocates approximately $8 million to lobbying.

This is just the CA prison guard union and it is $8 million a year.

From the same article:

>...many of [CCPOA’s] contributions are directly pro-incarceration. It gave over $100,000 to California’s Three Strikes initiative, Proposition 184 in 1994, making it the second-largest contributor. It gave at least $75,000 to the opponents of Proposition 36, the 2000 initiative that replaced incarceration with substance abuse treatment for certain nonviolent offenders. From 1998 to 2000 it gave over $120,000 to crime victims’ groups, who present a more sympathetic face to the public in their pro-incarceration advocacy. It spent over $1 million to help defeat Proposition 66, the 2004 initiative that would have limited the crimes that triggered a life sentence under the Three Strikes law. And in 2005, it killed Gov. Schwarzenegger’s plan to “reduce the prison population by as much as 20,000, mainly through a program that diverted parole violators into rehabilitation efforts: drug programs, halfway houses and home detention.”

https://californiapolicycenter.org/the-role-of-the-prison-gu...

Besides lobbying for more incarceration, they also lobby to prevent accountability:

>...Between 1989 and 1999, 39 inmates were shot to death, and 200 more were wounded. Not one district attorney in the state prosecuted a correctional officer for any of these assaults. ... Local district attorneys have good reason to hesitate before taking a position against the CCPOA’s interests. Greg Strickland, former district attorney in Kings County, home to Corcoran state correctional facilitity, attempted to take a brutality case to the grand jury. The CCPOA fueled his opponent with $30,000 in the next election, leading to Strickland’s defeat. A similar scenario happened in Del Norte County and in Susanville.

https://web.archive.org/web/20061006074501/http://www.cjcj.o...

Re: California bans private prisons and immigration detention centers (2019)

#107

Post by Thlom » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:51 PM UTC

jungletime wrote: post #60

Seems to me like increasing the use of house arrest is so much preferable to prison, for everyone involved. Just have it monitored properly. Maybe ankle bracelet, an GPS monitoring. With meal delivery, and health checkups, it could be cheaper too than housing someone in a prison. Have them take online classes and possibly let them work online to offset the costs of the monitoring. Or some sort of program to trade tim…

Where this is actually being tested, f.ex. some Scandinavian countries, the "inmate" is allowed to leave their apartment for work and necessary errands like grocery shopping or doctor visits. It's much better for everyone to let the inmate work than sitting on his arse all day watching netflix.

Re: California bans private prisons and immigration detention centers (2019)

#108

Post by lukifer » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 7:48 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #101

lukifer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in 100% agreement on the perverse incentives of private prisons; however it's worth noting that similar incentives exist for prison guard unions, even for publicly managed prisons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Correctional_Peace_... Abolishing private prisons is a good start, but we need much more drastic reform to the prison-industrial complex and failed "tough on crime" policies, particular in the r…

Prison guard unions have vastly less financial resources to work with and a wider range of issues they care about. They often brought up to deflect discussion, but simply operate at a order of magnitude smaller scale.

I'm on the left, and I'm not trying to deflect, engage in "whataboutism", or castigate unions in general. But all humans can succumb to perverse incentives: executives, stockholders, political representatives, and yes, even middle-class workers. The systemic corruption of police and prisons runs so deep, we need to be able to "walk and chew gum" in order to fix it, rather than assume that we can pull out a single thorn of bad policy.

Re: California bans private prisons and immigration detention centers (2019)

#109

Post by xyzzyz » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:10 PM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #90

sdenton4 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At risk of godwinning, by this logic the US should never have taken in all those Jewish scientists fleeing Nazi Germany... Or any of the many, many incredible Iranians I've known and worked with in my life. Often the best people are fleeing intolerable conditions. btw, the Open Borders graphic novel is fantastic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/openborders/

Oh no, we can take mexicans in of course, we just should't have open borders. I would hope that, when the US took in Jewish scientists, there was a mechanism in place to make sure they didn't take nazis disguised as jewish scientists.

We took Nazi scientists too, and they didn’t have to disguise themselves. They built our rockets and put us in space.

Re: California bans private prisons and immigration detention centers (2019)

#110

Post by corty » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:52 PM UTC

Thlom wrote: post #104

corty wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would still be various human rights treaties banning stuff like that.

Have the USA even ratified those?

Maybe not, but the USA have invaded countries that also didn't ratify human rights conventions and executed people as war criminals for human rights violations. So the USA seem to think they do apply. Human rights are generally thought to apply universally, not only in countries that agree.