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

561–570 of 646 posts

Re: California bans private prisons

#561

Post by xmprt »

geowwy wrote: post #554
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?

A lot of the times we would just do nothing. Marijuana possession doesn't need punishment for example. Otherwise there are a tonne of options from before prison became the norm. Community service, restitution, fines, public shaming, exile, corporal punishment, capital punishment. Some more acceptable today than others.

We still need a viable alternative that is both a deterrent and allows for rehabilitation and reintegration. I think things like prison, corporal punishment, exile, etc., are good deterrents but they're horrible at reintegration which is why prisons have such a high recidivation rates. On the other hand, community service isn't a high enough deterrent and flat fines disproportionally affect poor people.

Re: California bans private prisons

#562

Post by jhrmnn »

orthecreedence wrote: post #557
pepega_chgo wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 imprisonment is to punish criminals by depriving them of their liberty. This is an opinion, not a fact. And you don't even back up your opinion with any data to support it.

I guess this cannot be backed up by data. It's a moral belief.

Re: California bans private prisons

#563

Post by lovehashbrowns »

bthallplz wrote: post #488
lovehashbrowns wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just to throw it out there: the idea isn't absurd; it's evil.

You're completely right on that. Absolutely evil.

Re: California bans private prisons

#564

Post by af1991 »

coryrc wrote: post #175
arcticbull wrote: post #27

I'm so happy about this. Private prisons are the scum of the earth. They're totally antithetical to a free society that values human life. They often lobby for minimum occupancy levels in law (effectively requiring by law a certain percentage of citizens to be marked as criminals). Any profit they skim off the top is money that should be spent rehabilitating criminals and making them functional members of society. Ne…

The public sector isn't any better. The Price of Prison Guard Unions https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-price-of-prison-guar... PORAC's contribution to California's prison crisis http://www.cjcj.org/news/5423

I have to agree on this with you. The public sector isn't functioning as you would expect and opening this market can actually boost the state's economy and provide decent treatment to inmates.

Re: California bans private prisons

#565

Post by geowwy »

xmprt wrote: post #561
geowwy wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the times we would just do nothing. Marijuana possession doesn't need punishment for example. Otherwise there are a tonne of options from before prison became the norm. Community service, restitution, fines, public shaming, exile, corporal punishment, capital punishment. Some more acceptable today than others.

We still need a viable alternative that is both a deterrent and allows for rehabilitation and reintegration. I think things like prison, corporal punishment, exile, etc., are good deterrents but they're horrible at reintegration which is why prisons have such a high recidivation rates. On the other hand, community service isn't a high enough deterrent and flat fines disproportionally affect poor people.

  > I think things like prison, corporal punishment, exile, etc., are good deterrents but they're horrible at reintegration
Not sure I understand. Corporal punishment doesn't have a problem with re-integration because no one is removed from society, and the whole point of exile is you will never be re-integrated into society. Only prison has to deal with the problem of how to re-integrate people.

Re: California bans private prisons

#566

Post by ancorro »

dang wrote: post #515
_qhtn wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the last bit about Freakonomics- it lets everyone know it's safe to ignore you.

Ouch, please don't. We ban accounts that do personal attacks like this, and I don't want to ban you. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

As an outsider reading this thread I couldn't help but laugh at this.

Galanwe said phry was "very malicious", which is actually and not just tenuously a personal attack. Do you plan to delete their comment as well? Interesting standards on HN.

Re: California bans private prisons

#567

Post by JoeNr76 »

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?

Wait, what?

Ideally, citing your sources should be done without being asked.

And, when asked, people want to know which sources you have used, not the ones they can find for themselves. So even if you think it's common knowledge, we want to see the base of your thinking.

Re: California bans private prisons

#569

Post by Pelam »

philwelch wrote: post #439
55orolder wrote: post #185

I find it fascinating that private prisons draw such ire while the prison guard union draws so little, when the prison guard union has all the exact same incentives and is drastically more powerful. 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. This seems like a trivial easy-PR win for…

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…

I would like to have an explanation why "going after the unions" is a thing and what it means in this context?

I can understand for example limiting striking by law or similar ordnances to uphold order and democracy. Is this all the parent is talking about?

But isn't a union basically a private organisation formed by citizens by their own free will?

What does it mean for a political organization, eg a party, to go after something like that? I mean from liberal/freedom of the individual POV.

I'm most certainly missing something important here and me being european/nordic shows ;)

Re: California bans private prisons

#570

Post by ptah »

55orolder wrote: post #185

I find it fascinating that private prisons draw such ire while the prison guard union draws so little, when the prison guard union has all the exact same incentives and is drastically more powerful. 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. This seems like a trivial easy-PR win for…

the side effects of going after a union purely for this reason will need to be properly quantified before you can consider going down this road. removing private ownership of prisons is a no-brainer in comparison
Post reply on HN