The End of Prison Visitation in America

[CountDeMoney]

That comment makes no sense. What is wrong here is that they are applying a free market mechanism to an area where it is not applicable - I fully agree with Berkut's earlier posts. That does not mean there is something wrong with free market per se.

Neither does the term "openly challenging", either.  We can question an ideal, concept or principle without actually completely denouncing said ideal, concept or principle.  Kinda tough for you either/or types, I know.   

[Martinus]

That comment makes no sense. What is wrong here is that they are applying a free market mechanism to an area where it is not applicable - I fully agree with Berkut's earlier posts. That does not mean there is something wrong with free market per se.

Neither does the term "openly challenging", either.  We can question an ideal, concept or principle without actually completely denouncing said ideal, concept or principle.  Kinda tough for you either/or types, I know.

The expression "openly challenging the hypocrisy, venality and manufactured artificiality of the alleged "free" market" hardly sounds like you are objectively considering pros and cons.

[CountDeMoney]

No, I don't suppose we can question the broken elements of a system that's been warped to such a degree it's no longer recognizable.  Oh, well.

[The Larch]

Another unintended side effect of the privatization of prisons (and other associated services, such as juvenile detention centers, inmigration detention centers, probation services, etc) in the US, besides its moral objections, is that it has created a multi billion industry that has been lobbying politicians since the 80s through organizations like ALEC for the implementation of harsher penalties like mandatory minimum sentences, three strikes laws, or "truth in sentencing" measures, which all increase incarceration. These companies have all the incentive in the world to prevent as much as possible any softening in the penal codes of the US, and thus meddle in an area essential for governance, which is the fairness of justice. And that's not taking into account all the financial support they can give through donations to politicians or other elected officers (sheriffs, judges, etc.) that want to be "tough on crime", as this also benefits them.

[Admiral Yi]

When states ship their inmates out of state to for-profit prisons (as Alaska does, for example), yes.  When prisons (even public ones) cut off in-person visitation, because it's cheaper to contract a cheap Skype rip-off with crappy laptops, yes.

And even if for-profit prisons are cheaper, I believe in a principle that some things that government/society provide should be in the hands of commercial/market entities.  Institutions where you are depriving people of their freedom (even if justifiably) are perhaps the prime example of that principle.  Police as well, or any segment of the criminal justice system.

Prison Inc. doesn't decide where those Alaskan prisoners go, the state does.  DC has been sending prisoners to publicly operated prisons in Maryland and Virginia for as long as I can remember.  That has nothing to do with the status of the prison.

The second part of the post is just a repetition of the assertion.

[Admiral Yi]

What is interesting here is Yi's faith that the profit motive, in any and all cases, *must* be the proper choice.

Incredibly interesting.  You just made this up.

[Tonitrus]

When states ship their inmates out of state to for-profit prisons (as Alaska does, for example), yes.  When prisons (even public ones) cut off in-person visitation, because it's cheaper to contract a cheap Skype rip-off with crappy laptops, yes.

And even if for-profit prisons are cheaper, I believe in a principle that some things that government/society provide should be in the hands of commercial/market entities.  Institutions where you are depriving people of their freedom (even if justifiably) are perhaps the prime example of that principle.  Police as well, or any segment of the criminal justice system.

Prison Inc. doesn't decide where those Alaskan prisoners go, the state does.  DC has been sending prisoners to publicly operated prisons in Maryland and Virginia for as long as I can remember.  That has nothing to do with the status of the prison.

The second part of the post is just a repetition of the assertion.

If we're going to say that the problem is entirely the fault of the government allowing it...then we agree. 

And in just DC's case specifically, I think having their prisoners housed in Maryland/Virginia is pretty reasonable.  If it were Ohio/Georgia, or something like that...then no.

[Admiral Yi]

If we're going to say that the problem is entirely the fault of the government allowing it...then we agree. 

Who else's fault could it be? 

[Berkut]

What is interesting here is Yi's faith that the profit motive, in any and all cases, *must* be the proper choice.

Incredibly interesting.  You just made this up.

No, I just skipped ahead.

[Camerus]

Do prison companies in the US bid for contracts of fixed time length? If so, how is that not the market principle at play, given that the consumer in this situation is the tax payers as represented by the state  (and not the inmates)?

However, I don't believe that prisons should be run by any entity other than the state, as per Zanza's post.

[The Brain]

In the nuclear industry you can never avoid responsibility by blaming a contractor. If you have a license it's your job to make sure the plant is safe and secure, whether things are done in-house or not.

It is unclear to me why the state can't meet the same standard in this area as nuclear for-profits.

[grumbler]

Do prison companies in the US bid for contracts of fixed time length? If so, how is that not the market principle at play, given that the consumer in this situation is the tax payers as represented by the state  (and not the inmates)?

However, I don't believe that prisons should be run by any entity other than the state, as per Zanza's post.

The market principal assumes an informed buyer.  I don't think that even the peoples' representatives are informed buyers of prison management services.

The main reason I am more skeptical about the profit motive for prison services than, say, nuclear power generation is that there are no real models for regulation of the prison industry, as there are for the nuclear power industry.  When there is a nuclear power fuckup, it gets attention, and everyone tries to learn lessons from it.  When there is a prison management fuckup, hardly anyone even notices, and so other companies will make the same mistakes.

The secondary reason for my skepticism is that prison management would seem to me to be far more rife with perverse incentives to the prison management companies than nuclear power generation is for nuclear power companies.  If, say, prisoners in solitary require fewer guards than prisoners in the general population, then the management company has an incentive to increase the number of prisoners who are in solitary, to increase profits by lowering costs.  That's not how prisons should be run.

[dps]

FWIW, speaking as a libertarian-leaning conservative, I mostly agree with what was posted in this thread by Zanza, Tonitrus, and Berkut, except that where Zanza thinks prisons should be focused on rehabilitation, I think they should be more focused on punishment (I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).

[Jacob]

(I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).

What sort of evidence would convince you?

[dps]

(I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).

What sort of evidence would convince you?

Fair question.  I'm not sure;   90% reduction in recidivism, maybe.