California bans private prisons • Hacker News Board

Re: California bans private prisons

#141

Post by atoav » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:29 PM UTC

pepega_chgo wrote: post #107

llarsson wrote: post #24

Good riddance. The whole premise of private, for-profit, prisons has always seemed deeply troubling to me. The focus of a healthy prison system should be to rehabilitate people and help them turn their lives around so that they contribute positively to society. That can take years of hard work by the individual, and require assistance from professionals (therapists, teachers, ...). A for-profit company by definition…

The purpose of imprisonment is to punish criminals by depriving them of their liberty. As a side-effect, society benefits because a criminal has been forcibly removed from visiting further misery on law-abiding people. Imprisonment is and should be a deterrent punishment - it is not a support group. One can both be in favor of abolishing for-profit prisons and also in favor of severe deterrent sentences for law-break…

The purpose of prison certainly depends on the socity the prison is in. In Germany for example prison is certainly seen as a institution whose top-most goal it is to reform the inmate. Just punishing them and showing them that society doesn't care about them will in many cases achieve the polar opposite: it hardens them, makes them more dangerous and is therfore a punishment for the rest of society too.

And frankly if I had to choose between a reformed inmate who won't do it again but wasn't punished with cruelty and a hardened inmate who thinks he owes nothing to society I will always go for the former out of pure egoism.

It takes a certain transactional mindset to believe that harsher punishment result in less crime or that the suffering of the criminal will make up for the crimes commited. The lack of effectiveness for punishment to prevent future crimes is a well researched topic.

Re: California bans private prisons

#142

Post by peterwwillis » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:30 PM UTC

pepega_chgo wrote: post #107

llarsson wrote: post #24

Good riddance. The whole premise of private, for-profit, prisons has always seemed deeply troubling to me. The focus of a healthy prison system should be to rehabilitate people and help them turn their lives around so that they contribute positively to society. That can take years of hard work by the individual, and require assistance from professionals (therapists, teachers, ...). A for-profit company by definition…

The purpose of imprisonment is to punish criminals by depriving them of their liberty. As a side-effect, society benefits because a criminal has been forcibly removed from visiting further misery on law-abiding people. Imprisonment is and should be a deterrent punishment - it is not a support group. One can both be in favor of abolishing for-profit prisons and also in favor of severe deterrent sentences for law-break…

> the whole idea is to forcibly prevent criminals from breaking the law again

Unless you kill them, permanently incarcerate them, or lobotomize them, this is impossible.

The support group's intent is to help prevent re-offending after they are released.

Re: California bans private prisons

#143

Post by jedberg » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:30 PM UTC

KingMachiavelli wrote: post #78

> The contracts for these four prisons expire in 2023 and cannot be renewed under AB32, except to comply with a federal court order to reduce crowding in state-run facilities. Hmm, something tells me these will end up being renewed considering getting budget approval and completing construction in 3 years is basically impossible so unless Californa has some prisons with spare space or in-progress new construction. OR…

The next step is for the Governor to pardon all the people who are in for possession and other "lesser crimes" and the release them over the next there years, alleviating the need for additional prison space.

Re: California bans private prisons

#144

Post by gtfratteus » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:34 PM UTC

whyenot wrote: post #123

creaghpatr wrote: post #4

>Servin said that while the new law was a significant victory, there was one other thing immigrants rights groups were concerned about. When several sheriffs’ departments canceled their contracts to house Ice detainees last year, instead of freeing the detainees, Ice moved many of them to prisons in Colorado and Hawaii. Is this something that people against private prisons believe...that they just release all the pri…

immigration detainees and prisoners are two different groups.

If they're in prison, they're prisoners.

Re: California bans private prisons

#145

Post by acd » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:34 PM UTC

Well done California.

- Private prisons has no incentive of getting rid of its income source the prisoners.

- More emphasis should be put into preventive nature. Ie to stop people from becoming criminals. This most likely involves more instruction on how to raise children.

If analog was to computer program it is cheapest to do things correct at the design phase, once late in the phase the issue hits production it is very expensive to mitigate. Thus we should as society do maximum effort into supporting young children and parents. Once the person has turned into a criminal it is very expensive for society to correct the issue if at all possible.

Re: California bans private prisons

#146

Post by jedberg » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:35 PM UTC

jquery wrote: post #80

What's going to happen to the existing private prisons? I assume this involves tearing up very expensive contracts. Will the government purchase them and convert them to public ones?

The law says that current contracts can run until expiration, which is a few years from now. They'll have to either release prisoners, move them, or incarcerate fewer people (or a combination thereof) otherwise they'll have to renew the private contract, which is also allowed under the law if necessary to alleviate overcrowding.

Re: California bans private prisons

#147

Post by cannonedhamster » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:35 PM UTC

pepega_chgo wrote: post #107

llarsson wrote: post #24

Good riddance. The whole premise of private, for-profit, prisons has always seemed deeply troubling to me. The focus of a healthy prison system should be to rehabilitate people and help them turn their lives around so that they contribute positively to society. That can take years of hard work by the individual, and require assistance from professionals (therapists, teachers, ...). A for-profit company by definition…

The purpose of imprisonment is to punish criminals by depriving them of their liberty. As a side-effect, society benefits because a criminal has been forcibly removed from visiting further misery on law-abiding people. Imprisonment is and should be a deterrent punishment - it is not a support group. One can both be in favor of abolishing for-profit prisons and also in favor of severe deterrent sentences for law-break…

It's not just supposed to be a punishment and it's obviously not a deterrent. Rehabilitation and allowing for proper reintegration into society needs to happen or you end up with a former felon being stuck in a cycle of crime that they are forced into.

While I agree with your assessment of private prisons, I think we've begun to use the legal sure and imprisonment for things it wasn't intended for, such as minor vice crimes, based on flawed broken window thinking and making police terrified of the communities that they serve.

Re: California bans private prisons

#148

Post by bdhe » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:35 PM UTC

blackflame7000 wrote: post #23

synaesthesisx wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if they’re ambitious they can do something about the homeless crisis next.

Hahaha yea right, that problem is actually hard. Cleaning up straws is much easier.

That sort of cynicism is needless. Considering that this thread is about private prisons, a very serious issue, bringing up a literal straw man is disingenuous and completely unnecessary.

Re: California bans private prisons

#149

Post by Analemma_ » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:36 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #47

danaliv wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this something that people against private prisons believe...that they just release all the prisoners when they close the prison? There are a few different strains of thought when it comes to opposition to private prisons, but I believe the common denominator is that they create a perverse incentive. They turn prisons into businesses—the more prisoners, the better. So while there are definitely people who want t…

> There are a few different strains of thought when it comes to opposition to private prisons, but I believe the common denominator is that they create a perverse incentive. They turn prisons into businesses—the more prisoners, the better. The same criticism can be applied towards forced prison labour, and yet, it is explicitly permitted by the thirteenth amendment. (And is commonly used in state prisons.) Just becau…

Forced prison labor should also be outlawed. Just because we haven't fixed every problem yet doesn't mean we shouldn't cheer improvements like this.

Re: California bans private prisons

#150

Post by dahfizz » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 8:37 PM UTC

hanniabu wrote: post #111

addicted wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public jails are doing the same things because companies that provide those services lobby them to do it. The FCC under Obama had capped the amount they could charge which was promptly undone with government changes. This also ignores known stories such as an example where a judge had a stake in a private prison company (or was bribed outright?) And as a result was sentencing school kids to prison for things which pr…

> The FCC under Obama had capped the amount they could charge which was promptly undone with government changes. We see this time and time again. There really needs to be a better protocol for this. It takes so much time and effort to make these laws, yet they can be undone in a heartbeat. It's an inherently flawed system.

> It takes so much time and effort to make these laws, yet they can be undone in a heartbeat.

The whole problem is that these were not laws. The FCC does not make laws. If it had been done through Congress, it would have been a more lasting change. But anything one president can unilaterally do, the next can unilaterally undo.