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

541–550 of 646 posts

Re: California bans private prisons

#541

Post by dang »

trentmb wrote: post #531
dang wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It lets everyone know it's safe to ignore you" is a personal attack. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd really appreciate it.

> "It lets everyone know it's safe to ignore you" is a personal attack. No, it's a general attack on anyone that cites horseshit.

Ok, I believe you that that was your intent. But "you" is a personal pronoun. If you use that pronoun and sling pejoratives, people are naturally going to interpret it as a personal attack, as I did. If you don't want to be read that way, the burden is on you to disambiguate that.

Re: California bans private prisons

#542

Post by js8 »

PorterDuff wrote: post #513
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…

"The American culture is very antagonistic. In democratic societies, which are less antagonistic, this would become a matter of new public consensus much sooner before they would go on actual strike" Like France?

I think France is kind of odd because yes, they do strike a lot, but usually the public approval of the striking is quite high. So it is less antagonistic in this sense.

I live in Europan country with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartism, and that's one option how to make things less antagonistic. There is lot of negotiations going on before the strike happens, and it mostly gets averted.

Re: California bans private prisons

#543

Post by fastball »

lightgreen wrote: post #530
artificialLimbs wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've entertained the idea of abolishing prisons in my head, but I can't imagine what we would do as an alternative. Suggestions?

If it was nonviolent crime, then island where convicted can live with shops, houses, internet, trains and parks and local elected administration and cctv, but cannot go back to the rest of the world. But if it is a serious violent crime, it should still be prison. Comfortable like in Europe or better, but preventing convicted from doing harm to others. It should not be a punishment. It should be just an isolation. Se…

Brb, I'm gonna go commit a bunch of non-violent crimes so that I can live on this island paradise.

Re: California bans private prisons

#544

Post by lightgreen »

fastball wrote: post #543
lightgreen wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was nonviolent crime, then island where convicted can live with shops, houses, internet, trains and parks and local elected administration and cctv, but cannot go back to the rest of the world. But if it is a serious violent crime, it should still be prison. Comfortable like in Europe or better, but preventing convicted from doing harm to others. It should not be a punishment. It should be just an isolation. Se…

Brb, I'm gonna go commit a bunch of non-violent crimes so that I can live on this island paradise.

You can go to that island voluntarily without committing any crime.

Re: California bans private prisons

#545

Post by rienbdj »

arcticbull wrote: post #459
rienbdj wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is not how prices work. consumers only pay the maximum they would be willing to pay for a good when there is only one provider. when there are multiple providers prices are pushed down to the cost of production. or so the theory goes.

* caveat: Assuming no power disparty between buyers and sellers. If you need something more than the seller needs your money they're free to adjust the price up no matter how many of them there are. For instance, a hurricane comes in to town. All of a sudden, every gas station is charging $50/bottle for water and $10/gal for gas, even though the market is no more or less competitive than the day before when they char…

the provider is still not free to wait out the buyer in a competitive market because another provider can swoop in and make the deal.

in you price gouging example prices are high because demand is so much higher than supply, but goods still change hands.

again, this is all in theory

Re: California bans private prisons

#546

Post by bakuninsbart »

lovehashbrowns wrote: post #57
warent wrote: post #40

> Private prison companies used to view California as one of their fastest-growing markets. This is such a bizarre and twisted sentence to hear without a hint of irony. It's like dream/nightmare logic except in real life. In 100 years private prisons are going to be a hideous stain on our history and this is such a huge step in the right direction that it really makes me proud to be living in California and supportin…

Isn't it? Companies that probably lobby for stricter and longer sentences, looking at a populated state as a "market," with caged human beings as their product. It's the most absurd concept to me, and it's even more disgusting when it's put in such an innocent manner. "Private prison companies used to view California as one of their fastest-growing markets." It just gets more disgusting the more you look into it, and…

It is not just that the states are paying them to house convicts (or people accused of a crime), they can even use these people to do jobs for basically no wage. These companies are in the business of slave labor.

Re: California bans private prisons

#547

Post by smokelegend »

frankharv wrote: post #519
JesseAldridge wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the Amazon summary from the linked book: "a major shift in prosecutor behavior that occurred in the mid-1990s, when prosecutors began bringing felony charges against arrestees about twice as often as they had before"

If you don't want to do time, Don't do the crime.

How does that work exactly when the crime is against a plant you use for personal medical reasons. Love it or hate it, medical weed is cheaper and easier to produce then most opioid alternatives. [i.e. morphine, codeine, oxytocin, etc.] And its safer to produce, process, and distribute to end users [consumers]. So grandma gets a felony conviction because she grew her medical weed in her backyard garden and now has 10-15yrs of her life wasted in a prison cell... How exactly does the math of justice add that up? Grandma grew 20 plants because she wanted to make her medicine and have enough left over to make some edible cookies... Grandma's of America union doesn't exist, grandma is left to the mercy of a corrupt justice systems that mandates minimum federal sentencing guidelines regardless of a defendants circumstances. The math doesn't add up, it's cruel punishment and unfair treatment of the law. I mean if grandma had a meth lab then yeah she deserves to "due the time" but for weed, no one should go to jail for weed... it's a complete waste of tax money..IMHO

Re: California bans private prisons

#548

Post by rjf72 »

donatj wrote: post #501
TearsInTheRain wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like there are just 0 incentives for a private prison to actually rehabilitate anyone. Perhaps private prisons could work if they were compensated based on recidivism rate or something

Call me cynical but the entire law system in the United States is punitive, there is zero interest in rehabilitation by anyone in power.

One problem you face in the United States that's not present in areas where there are focuses on rehabilitation (such as Norway) is crime culture. I grew up in a very urban poor area and gang life was something that people strove for. Getting into a gang was a goal similar to how working for a FAANG might be a goal for somebody from a different culture. And the gangs act as family replacements for kids who come from mostly dysfunctional homes.

The point of this is that by the time they hit their late teens and start entering the prison system, they don't see it as prison but simply a temporary time out from 'the life.' And when they get out, their time in lock up is something that's worn as a badge of honor showing how 'hard' they are. And of course since this culture starts to take a grip quite early, individuals that fall into this trap are generally going to be extremely uneducated. You're looking at adults with elementary or middle school level educations, and generally who have a very strong aversion to education in general.

And so how do you rehabilitate against this? When these guys get out of lockup their options are returning to the life where they're going to met with adulation and respect. Or they can try to go get a minimum wage job bagging groceries or asking if you'd like fries with that. Even look at things such as all the dead rappers. Many of these guys had millions of dollars and could have just retired into self indulgent hedonism on a beach somewhere if they wanted. But even those millions of dollars can't take them away from 'the life', until it eventually takes their life.

I'd predict here that we're going to be able to gradually see Sweden start to migrate towards a punitive based prison system as well. Before they had a negligible crime culture, but now they've entered an era where they're left engaging in hand grenade amenesties. [1] It's that sort of environment where rehabilitation gradually gives way to punitive responses.

[1] - https://www.thelocal.se/20181015/give-up-your-hand-grenades-...

Re: California bans private prisons

#549

Post by triceratops »

mrep wrote: post #406
triceratops wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the fact that their population is only a fraction of the US I don't understand why that matters. But if it does, couldn't the US implement social healthcare at the state level? Canada and California have roughly equal populations, for instance.

They totally could but for some reason no state does... Instead, I only see senators, representatives, and potential presidential candidates trying to force it upon the entire country. We are the united states, let individual states start the process and let it bubble up to the federal level once enough states enable it just like we are doing with marijuana laws. IMO, the federal government has been getting too large…

> They totally could but for some reason no state does

No state alone can, because it would have (or at least would fear) a large influx of people coming for the free healthcare. If enough states set up their own systems and make them interoperable, it might have some legs. I hear rumblings of this from time to time,

What I meant was a federally-mandated, state-implemented system. Federal law can define a minimum level of healthcare that every state is obligated to provide. States set up and administer their own systems, any way they want - single-payer, mandatory private insurance etc. Isn't that how Canada actually does it?

It handles the "US is too big" objection to universal healthcare that everyone loves to bring up, by moving the systems to a lower level.

Re: California bans private prisons

#550

Post by johnchristopher »

cstejerean wrote: post #524
johnchristopher wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

So this isn’t directed at you in particular but I don’t understand this “do you have any sources?” for stuff that’s one search away. If it was some obscure hard to find information published in some journal I would understand it, but this in this case https://lmgtfy.com/?q=california+prison+guards+lobby And yet I see this constantly on almost every thread. What is it with HN and asking for sources on everything?

I totally see your point. That's why I added "I am not from the US" to signal "I don't live there, I don't know the in and out of this and I need the help of someone closer to the subject to help me grok it faster".

True, I could google for it but then I am on an hunt to discern the truths and the lies and to understand why someone lies or tells the truth to whom and how it is pertinent to the original request (and there's the bubble search, of course).

The thing is, I don't know - in that case - if it's obscure or not.

Plus, our comments aren't born in a vacuum. Parent likely has additional information or an outlook on the subject that I wouldn't find (or more likely find but likely dismiss because of a lack of context) in a 15 minutes google search.

Then, on the other hand, you actually have snipers around here who are quick to derail conversations by not participating, not giving information or sharing outlook and just shooting "Sources ?" and then never coming back to the thread.

You have to trust me on that one but I assure you I don't do that.

Now, asking for sources is most of time a given when someone makes extraordinary claims meant to shut an argument (eg: "X is bad 98% of time don't talk about X" when everyone was considering X safe from the get-go).

edit: I should have asked something like "Do you have an article to recommend that would shed some lights on this matter ?". The "Do you have sources ?" is a bit harsh and inquisitive, my bad.

edit (2): On the other hand, I clicked your link, without looking at the URL, thinking "ah cool, this person is telling me that in this case a simple google search will yield pertinent results. But all I got was a "fuck you, use google".

Post reply on HN