Excellent news.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33539621/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
QuotePa. high court tosses 'kids for cash' convictions
Ruling covers more than 6,000 cases linked to juvenile justice scandal
updated 7:46 p.m. ET Oct. 29, 2009
WILKES-BARRE, Pa. - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed thousands of juvenile convictions issued by a judge charged in a corruption scandal, saying that none of the young offenders got a fair hearing.
The high court on Thursday threw out more than five years' worth of juvenile cases heard by former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella, who is charged with accepting millions of dollars in kickbacks to send youths to private detention centers.
The Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, which represents some of the youths, said the court's order covers as many as 6,500 cases. The justices barred any possibility of retrial in all but a fraction of them.
"This is exactly the relief these kids needed," said Marsha Levick, the center's legal director. "It's the most serious judicial corruption scandal in our history and the court took an extraordinary step in addressing it."
Children appeared without lawyers
Children routinely appeared in front of Ciavarella without lawyers for hearings that lasted only a few minutes. Ciavarella also failed to question young defendants to make sure they fully understood the consequences of waiving counsel and pleading guilty, showing "complete disregard for the constitutional rights of the juveniles," the Supreme Court said.
After being found delinquent, the youths were often shackled and taken to private jails whose owner was paying bribes to the judge. Federal prosecutors have said that Ciavarella and another Luzerne County judge, Michael Conahan, took a total of $2.8 million in payoffs.
"Ciavarella's admission that he received these payments, and that he failed to disclose his financial interests arising from the development of the juvenile facilities, thoroughly undermines the integrity of all juvenile proceedings before Ciavarella," the Supreme Court said.
The judges pleaded guilty in February to honest services fraud and tax evasion in a deal with prosecutors that called for a sentence of 87 months in prison. But the deal was rejected in August by Senior U.S. District Judge Edward M. Kosik, who said the two hadn't fully accepted responsibility for the crimes, and the ex-judges switched their pleas to not guilty.
A federal grand jury then returned a 48-count racketeering indictment against the judges, who await trial.
The Supreme Court had previously overturned hundreds of juvenile convictions involving low-level offenses. Thursday's ruling covered all cases heard by Ciavarella between 2003 and 2008, including ones involving more serious crimes.
"We fully agree that, given the nature and extent of the taint, this Court simply cannot have confidence that any juvenile matter adjudicated by Ciavarella during this period was tried in a fair and impartial manner," the court wrote.
Prosecutors in Luzerne County had agreed that none of the convictions should stand, but they wanted the right to bring dangerous offenders back into court for retrials.
The court said the district attorney's office may seek to retry youths who remain under court supervision — a group that Levick said likely numbers fewer than 100. And those youths may challenge any attempt to retry them on double-jeopardy grounds, the court said.
Ex-judges seek immunity
Berks County Senior Judge Arthur Grim, whom the justices appointed in February to review cases handled by Ciavarella, will consider any retrial requests made by the DA's office and forward his recommendations to the high court.
Meanwhile, the two ex-judges have asked to be dismissed as defendants in a series of civil lawsuits filed in the wake of the juvenile justice scandal.
Ciavarella and former Luzerne County Judge Michael Conahan already face criminal charges.
Now, they're seeking judicial immunity from civil lawsuits filed on behalf of hundreds of youths they sentenced.
A federal judge in Wilkes-Barre heard arguments on Wednesday but did not immediately issue a decision.
Immunity is designed to give judges freedom to rule without fear of legal retribution. But plaintiffs' attorneys say the judges' conduct went beyond the scope of normal court business.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press
This is really a case of "I'm shocked, shocked to discover there is corruption going on in this system". Private prisons are a terrible idea.
Yes, it's one of these "Gee, what could possibly go wrong?" cases.
At least he didn't send them to a gay shelter.
Weak on crime bleeding heart liberals. :mad:
I'm curious: are there any studies on private detention centres vs. state-run ones? I'm thinking in such basic areas as quality of life, facilities, rates of recidivism, emphasis on religion, employment programs, likelihood to receive parole, etc.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 30, 2009, 05:25:58 AM
Weak on crime bleeding heart liberals. :mad:
Hey, we evil liberals have nothing on principle against being tough on crime. That's the NKVD style!. :P
What we don't like is prisons having owners that earn more money the more inmates they have. What's better for the business? A lot of crime & hard sentences, long prison terms, no paroles, and the more recidivism the better.
Oh, and no one leaving court free. No wonder some people act proactively... That must be the very worst misplaced incentives system ever.
Is there some reason to think this is not an isolated incident?
6500 convictions is not an incident.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 30, 2009, 08:36:37 AM
6500 convictions is not an incident.
Sure it is. It was one court, two judges, and 1 company. Pretty terrible that it went on for so long, but the claim that this result is somehow inevitable given "private" detention facilities has a pretty steep credibility curb to climb. Not real surprising that it is Marty et al making such a claim without any foundation.
So...there are lots of private detention facilities (especially for juveniles) out there - is this stuff going on all the time, or is this an isolated incident?
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2009, 08:32:49 AM
Is there some reason to think this is not an isolated incident?
Even if the bribes were collected only by those two judges, it's hardly an
isolated incident. 6,500 tainted convictions in 5 years pretty much totally undermines the position of the Luzerne County court. No juvenile's attorney is going to want to have a case heard by a Luzerne County judge while there's a pending racketeering case and any possibility of other judges being exposed as well; unfortunately, jurisdiction would keep attorneys from filing for a change of venue except for under the most extreme circumstances. The judicial assignments are probably going to be lots of fun, as they'll most likely scramble judges from other judicial districts.
The court's not going to view this as an incident; it's going to see it as a nightmare for the judicial district's credibility. Expect a HUGE backlog of appeals and bizarre filings from this.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 30, 2009, 08:53:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2009, 08:32:49 AM
Is there some reason to think this is not an isolated incident?
Even if the bribes were collected only by those two judges, it's hardly an isolated incident. 6,500 tainted convictions in 5 years pretty much totally undermines the position of the Luzerne County court. No juvenile's attorney is going to want to have a case heard by a Luzerne County judge while there's a pending racketeering case and any possibility of other judges being exposed as well; unfortunately, jurisdiction would keep attorneys from filing for a change of venue except for under the most extreme circumstances. The judicial assignments are probably going to be lots of fun, as they'll most likely scramble judges from other judicial districts.
The court's not going to view this as an incident; it's going to see it as a nightmare for the judicial district's credibility. Expect a HUGE backlog of appeals and bizarre filings from this.
Appeals? They threw out every single conviction! What is there to appeal?
And of course this is going to destroy the credibility of that court - it SHOULD do exactly that. This is one of the largest and most heinous examples of judicial corruption I have ever heard of.
But again, how is this indicative of some kind of flaw in the system of using private juvenile detention facilities? Maybe it is - maybe this is the inevitable result of such a system - but I have seen no data to suggest that is the case.
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2009, 09:02:22 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 30, 2009, 08:53:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2009, 08:32:49 AM
Is there some reason to think this is not an isolated incident?
Even if the bribes were collected only by those two judges, it's hardly an isolated incident. 6,500 tainted convictions in 5 years pretty much totally undermines the position of the Luzerne County court. No juvenile's attorney is going to want to have a case heard by a Luzerne County judge while there's a pending racketeering case and any possibility of other judges being exposed as well; unfortunately, jurisdiction would keep attorneys from filing for a change of venue except for under the most extreme circumstances. The judicial assignments are probably going to be lots of fun, as they'll most likely scramble judges from other judicial districts.
The court's not going to view this as an incident; it's going to see it as a nightmare for the judicial district's credibility. Expect a HUGE backlog of appeals and bizarre filings from this.
Appeals? They threw out every single conviction! What is there to appeal?
And of course this is going to destroy the credibility of that court - it SHOULD do exactly that. This is one of the largest and most heinous examples of judicial corruption I have ever heard of.
But again, how is this indicative of some kind of flaw in the system of using private juvenile detention facilities? Maybe it is - maybe this is the inevitable result of such a system - but I have seen no data to suggest that is the case.
I made no claim about the use of private detention facilities; simply that the court sees this as up to 6,500 incidents caused by systemic bribery.
I'm also not talking about appeals by the convicts, although those are going to be touchy- you can't appeal an
acquittal, but if any of these cases have been declared
mistrials, they may still be able to be tried without running foul of double jeopardy or exhaustion of the statute of limitations.
What I was talking about is bizarre appeals and motions coming from cases
currently in the system. Juveniles' attorneys are most likely to look at it that these two judges had a pretty complex system in place- until convictions have been handed out and these trials are completed, there's a possibility that any other judge from Luzerne County from that time period could be exposed as part of the racket in court, and counsel
will take advantage of that doubt.
Ahhh, ok. I guess that is possible.
The benefits of a classical education:
Quote
Quote from: Herodotus
He left as general of all the troops upon the sea-coast Otanes, son of Sisamnes, whose father King Cambyses slew and flayed, because that he, being of the number of the royal judges, had taken money to give an unrighteous sentence. Therefore Cambyses slew and flayed Sisamnes, and cutting his skin into strips, stretched them across the seat of the throne whereon he had been wont to sit when he heard causes. Having so done Cambyses appointed the son of Sisamnes to be judge in his father's room, and bade him never forget in what way his seat was cushioned.
I'm guessing this would be a trifle unconstitutional. pity. :(
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2009, 04:45:41 PM
The benefits of a classical education:
Quote
Quote from: Herodotus
He left as general of all the troops upon the sea-coast Otanes, son of Sisamnes, whose father King Cambyses slew and flayed, because that he, being of the number of the royal judges, had taken money to give an unrighteous sentence. Therefore Cambyses slew and flayed Sisamnes, and cutting his skin into strips, stretched them across the seat of the throne whereon he had been wont to sit when he heard causes. Having so done Cambyses appointed the son of Sisamnes to be judge in his father's room, and bade him never forget in what way his seat was cushioned.
I'm guessing this would be a trifle unconstitutional. pity. :(
Not to mention probably unsanitary.
It's not cruel if they're already dead, and not unusual if you do it frequently.
Quote from: Martinus on November 02, 2009, 04:48:58 PM
Not to mention probably unsanitary.
Presumably one
tans the skin first. :D
Quote from: Maximus on November 02, 2009, 04:49:49 PM
It's not cruel if they're already dead, and not unusual if you do it frequently.
I'd support this - as both punishment
and as cost-saving idea.
"It is true we have private prisions -
but you should see the court furniture. Such comfortable leather ... ". :D
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2009, 04:45:41 PM
The benefits of a classical education:
Personal foul, unnecessary Die Hard reference, 15 yards. Repeat the post.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2009, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2009, 04:45:41 PM
The benefits of a classical education:
Personal foul, unnecessary Die Hard reference, 15 yards. Repeat the post.
Believe it or not, the phrase predates
Die Hard. :D
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2009, 06:56:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2009, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2009, 04:45:41 PM
The benefits of a classical education:
Personal foul, unnecessary Die Hard reference, 15 yards. Repeat the post.
Believe it or not, the phrase predates Die Hard. :D
Link, plz. And make it a link cooler than Hans Fucking Gruber.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2009, 06:57:48 PM
Link, plz. And make it a link cooler than Hans Fucking Gruber.
I doubt one could find a quote cooler. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2009, 06:57:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2009, 06:56:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2009, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2009, 04:45:41 PM
The benefits of a classical education:
Personal foul, unnecessary Die Hard reference, 15 yards. Repeat the post.
Believe it or not, the phrase predates Die Hard. :D
Link, plz.
I'm not sure that there's much 18th century literature available online.
Quote from: dps on November 02, 2009, 11:21:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2009, 06:57:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2009, 06:56:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2009, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2009, 04:45:41 PM
The benefits of a classical education:
Personal foul, unnecessary Die Hard reference, 15 yards. Repeat the post.
Believe it or not, the phrase predates Die Hard. :D
Link, plz.
I'm not sure that there's much 18th century literature available online.
Project Guttenberg has tons of shit.
I know Missouri can't use private facilities anymore after a number of inmates died or something. Apperently the liability still rests with the state and the state got sued.
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2009, 09:02:22 AM
But again, how is this indicative of some kind of flaw in the system of using private juvenile detention facilities? Maybe it is - maybe this is the inevitable result of such a system - but I have seen no data to suggest that is the case.
One doesn't really need statistical data to expect that the system will be flawed - it's human nature. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2009, 03:38:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2009, 09:02:22 AM
But again, how is this indicative of some kind of flaw in the system of using private juvenile detention facilities? Maybe it is - maybe this is the inevitable result of such a system - but I have seen no data to suggest that is the case.
One doesn't really need statistical data to expect that the system will be flawed - it's human nature. :huh:
Indeed. What use is evidence or research when we have gut emotion!
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 03, 2009, 06:15:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2009, 03:38:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2009, 09:02:22 AM
But again, how is this indicative of some kind of flaw in the system of using private juvenile detention facilities? Maybe it is - maybe this is the inevitable result of such a system - but I have seen no data to suggest that is the case.
One doesn't really need statistical data to expect that the system will be flawed - it's human nature. :huh:
Indeed. What use is evidence or research when we have gut emotion!
It's hardly gut emotion - it's the knowledge of human psychology. If you incentivise fucked up behaviour you should expect to get it.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2009, 06:45:15 AM
If you incentivise fucked up behaviour you should expect to get it.
So how do we stop you?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 03, 2009, 06:15:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2009, 03:38:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2009, 09:02:22 AM
But again, how is this indicative of some kind of flaw in the system of using private juvenile detention facilities? Maybe it is - maybe this is the inevitable result of such a system - but I have seen no data to suggest that is the case.
One doesn't really need statistical data to expect that the system will be flawed - it's human nature. :huh:
Indeed. What use is evidence or research when we have gut emotion!
Oh, please... what we have here is a classical case of misplaced incentives.
The best example is probably the armed services. You don't want a 'corporate' army looking for profits, because even if such forces were 100% reliable and loyal, the ideal world for their business would be eternal war. Quite low intensity and chivalric, perhaps, only bloody enough to discourage newcomers and 'amateurs', but eternal.
Roughly the same applies to justice courts, police forces... and prisons. Even discounting the potential for corruption (and that danger is always present, humans being humans) a prison run as a private business has no interest in being successful and return to society honest citizens. On the contrary, it's far better for their future profits to fail and produce delinquents that return to jail as soon as possible... they just have no incentive to succeed.
I have reread this thread, and I don't see anyone claiming corruption is general... but is not surprising at all to find some corruption going on. And I would fully expect the system to be harmful even if 100% clean.
@Count
You can't change human nature. But you can have prisons that don't gain more money for their owners because they fail at reforming juvenile delinquents... About stopping Martinus, you would get bored very soon. You have no incentive to stop him! :P
Quote from: Alatriste on November 03, 2009, 06:55:40 AM
Roughly the same applies to justice courts, police forces... and prisons. Even discounting the potential for corruption (and that danger is always present, humans being humans) a prison run as a private business has no interest in being successful and return to society honest citizens. On the contrary, it's far better for their future profits to fail and produce delinquents that return to jail as soon as possible... they just have no incentive to succeed.
The problem is there is no evidence for your assertion. That is why I asked for such information earlier in this thread. I agree that your argument is plausible and could indeed be the case, but I am reluctant to accept it with virtually no evidence whatsoever.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2009, 06:45:15 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 03, 2009, 06:15:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2009, 03:38:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2009, 09:02:22 AM
But again, how is this indicative of some kind of flaw in the system of using private juvenile detention facilities? Maybe it is - maybe this is the inevitable result of such a system - but I have seen no data to suggest that is the case.
One doesn't really need statistical data to expect that the system will be flawed - it's human nature. :huh:
Indeed. What use is evidence or research when we have gut emotion!
It's hardly gut emotion - it's the knowledge of human psychology. If you incentivise fucked up behaviour you should expect to get it.
But we don't get it, by and large, which should suggest that your thesis is in fact just your normal attempt to prove that if you are a lawyer, you aren't a very good one, since apparently gut reaction counts for a lot more than careful analysis.
A example does not make a trend. Lets see you data showing that in fact this is the inevitable result, since we should "expect it". Therefore, logic tells us that if this is to be expected, it should happen in most, if not all cases of privately run juvenile detention facilities.
Gee, thanks for an ad hom, Berkut. I thought we can keep one thread free from it, but yet you never disappoint.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2009, 09:43:01 AM
Gee, thanks for an ad hom, Berkut. I thought we can keep one thread free from it, but yet you never disappoint.
Yeah, asking you for data is pretty much tantamount to an ad hom.
You playing the martyr card is pretty funny though.
But in the interest of focusing on the debate, which you are clearly ever so worried about, I will restate my request:
Where is your data that shows that this is a systemic problem?
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2009, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2009, 09:43:01 AM
Gee, thanks for an ad hom, Berkut. I thought we can keep one thread free from it, but yet you never disappoint.
Yeah, asking you for data is pretty much tantamount to an ad hom.
You playing the martyr card is pretty funny though.
But in the interest of focusing on the debate, which you are clearly ever so worried about, I will restate my request:
Where is your data that shows that this is a systemic problem?
This part was "asking me for data":
Quotejust your normal attempt to prove that if you are a lawyer, you aren't a very good one
:lol:
Why, you should have also called me a cocksucker while "asking for data", I guess. I mean, it's your typical "debate" style.
OK, I am sorry Marty. I apologize for pointing out that you are a rather suspect lawyer, and take it back. However, I bet you cannot find a single example of me ever calling you a cocksucker - you will have to own that label yourself.
Let's return to the meat of the argument, and avoid this little personal tiffs.
How about that data then? You know, the many examples of corruption that are inevitable due to the incentives you were talking about?
No, but then again I am not aware of any study being done to check that.
What I am saying is what Alatriste already said so there is no point in repeating that - the system in which a private businessman is running a prison facility and earns money based on the number of inmates he has inside incentivises responses that are incompatible with the alleged goals of the justice and penitentiary systems.
Of course, we can assume that people running these facilities are for the most part virtuous and honorable men who would not stoop to such financial temptations, but I would call that naive.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2009, 09:54:57 AM
No, but then again I am not aware of any study being done to check that.
What I am saying is what Alatriste already said so there is no point in repeating that - the system in which a private businessman is running a prison facility and earns money based on the number of inmates he has inside incentivises responses that are incompatible with the alleged goals of the justice and penitentiary systems.
Of course, we can assume that people running these facilities are for the most part virtuous and honorable men who would not stoop to such financial temptations, but I would call that naive.
You don't need a study though - as this story shows, judicial corruption is huge news. Where are all these stories of this happening, since your claim is that it WILL happen, due to the incentives.
the problem is you are ignoring countering incentives that mitigate against this happening, of course. Like the fact that this judge is likely to spend the rest of his life in prison. Or the myriad of checks and balances that are presumably built into the system to avoid this kind of thing.
I cannot think of a single government program that will not have incentives that are negative. it is inane to just assume that therefore they must all be necessarily corrupt, like we are not capable as a society to recognize negative incentives and counter them. You might as well argue that private road construction companies will always make shitty roads so they can turn around and fix them. That would probably be true if we did not create countering incentives to make sure they did not do such things.
Why, other than this one spectacular failure, should we just assume that private juvenile detention facilities are so special and different that it is impossible to manage them in a fair manner?
Again, where is your data? What are you basin your conclusions on, other than your standard emo rage?
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2009, 09:54:57 AM
What I am saying is what Alatriste already said so there is no point in repeating that - the system in which a private businessman is running a prison facility and earns money based on the number of inmates he has inside incentivises responses that are incompatible with the alleged goals of the justice and penitentiary systems.
If that's the source of a problem, it's easy to fix, though. Don't pay them per prisoner--just pay them a fixed amount each year to provide X number of cells.
Frankly, though, I don't see why iit would be a problem in an adult prison--overcrowding is the problem with our prisons, not over capacity. Juvie system might be a different situation.
Yeah, also you could give bonuses for low recidivism rates.
Quote from: dps on November 03, 2009, 05:44:01 PM
If that's the source of a problem, it's easy to fix, though. Don't pay them per prisoner--just pay them a fixed amount each year to provide X number of cells.
Yeah, but if not enough people got to prison, eventually the number of cells contracted for goes down. Same incentives, just slightly less direct.
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2009, 06:01:33 PM
Quote from: dps on November 03, 2009, 05:44:01 PM
If that's the source of a problem, it's easy to fix, though. Don't pay them per prisoner--just pay them a fixed amount each year to provide X number of cells.
Yeah, but if not enough people got to prison, eventually the number of cells contracted for goes down. Same incentives, just slightly less direct.
Well, as I noted, we don't exactly have the problem of having too many prison cells.
Quote from: dps on November 03, 2009, 06:05:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2009, 06:01:33 PM
Quote from: dps on November 03, 2009, 05:44:01 PM
If that's the source of a problem, it's easy to fix, though. Don't pay them per prisoner--just pay them a fixed amount each year to provide X number of cells.
Yeah, but if not enough people got to prison, eventually the number of cells contracted for goes down. Same incentives, just slightly less direct.
Well, as I noted, we don't exactly have the problem of having too many prison cells.
From the article I assumed that prisoners are directed to prisons located in the court district they were sentenced, more or less. Is the over-crowding of non-federal prison a problem that exists in every single court district in America?
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2009, 10:16:00 AM
the problem is you are ignoring countering incentives that mitigate against this happening, of course.
I still think that Cambyses had the best "incentive" - upholstery. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2009, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2009, 04:45:41 PM
The benefits of a classical education:
Personal foul, unnecessary Die Hard reference, 15 yards. Repeat the post.
The Commish says that no Die Hard reference is unnecessary.
Hey, sorry to bother you like this, but I was on the way to Korea, and my boat had a flat tire, so I kind of need an inner tube.
Still waiting for Marty to provide the data showing how corruption is rampant in the US due to this inevitable and incontestable adverse incentives.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 03, 2009, 06:15:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2009, 03:38:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2009, 09:02:22 AM
But again, how is this indicative of some kind of flaw in the system of using private juvenile detention facilities? Maybe it is - maybe this is the inevitable result of such a system - but I have seen no data to suggest that is the case.
One doesn't really need statistical data to expect that the system will be flawed - it's human nature. :huh:
Indeed. What use is evidence or research when we have gut emotion!
You just need to listen to your body.
:D
Quote from: Scipio on November 04, 2009, 09:39:57 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 03, 2009, 06:15:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2009, 03:38:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2009, 09:02:22 AM
But again, how is this indicative of some kind of flaw in the system of using private juvenile detention facilities? Maybe it is - maybe this is the inevitable result of such a system - but I have seen no data to suggest that is the case.
One doesn't really need statistical data to expect that the system will be flawed - it's human nature. :huh:
Indeed. What use is evidence or research when we have gut emotion!
You just need to listen to your body.
So Marty = Meri?
Quote from: Scipio on November 04, 2009, 09:39:57 AM
You just need to listen to your body.
I like your new schtick.
I should privatize my languish viewing.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2009, 09:54:57 AM
What I am saying is what Alatriste already said so there is no point in repeating that - the system in which a private businessman is running a prison facility and earns money based on the number of inmates he has inside incentivises responses that are incompatible with the alleged goals of the justice and penitentiary systems.
\
But how do you go from that to the conclusion that judicial corruption is inevitable or likely as a result? After all, judges routinely make rulings in private disputes involving vast sums of money, and sometimes even involving repeat players. The incentives for suborning corruption are always present. Yet actual instances of such corruption are rare.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 04, 2009, 04:47:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2009, 09:54:57 AM
What I am saying is what Alatriste already said so there is no point in repeating that - the system in which a private businessman is running a prison facility and earns money based on the number of inmates he has inside incentivises responses that are incompatible with the alleged goals of the justice and penitentiary systems.
\
But how do you go from that to the conclusion that judicial corruption is inevitable or likely as a result? After all, judges routinely make rulings in private disputes involving vast sums of money, and sometimes even involving repeat players. The incentives for suborning corruption are always present. Yet actual instances of such corruption are rare.
Well, actual instances of judges being caught at it are rare, at least. :D