Efficient in this case is purely financial. If there are hard facts that determine the need for a (made-up) 10 prisoners per guard rule, why has it not been legislated.
Once you determine that then efficiency is easily compiled based upon what works.
Obviously if there are riots, then it isn’t working. Or at the least maybe the riot would have happened anyway.
The problem I have is that several people here (including the OP) leap from “prison corporations want more people to go to prison” directly to “prison corporations get laws written that send more people to prison”. The point I’ve been making is that there’s a huge gap between what a prison corporation desires and what it is able to obtain and that prison corproations are subject to the same limits on their power that other corporations are subject to.
To some extent it is, and I do find it kind of distasteful. But most of these seat belt, helmet, cell phone-type laws will enhance safety and will ultimately save the insurance industry money on settlements. Still not on the same level as lobbying directly (including using false scare tactics as CCA did in Arizona) for criminal laws that are designed primarily to bring in more profit to a private prison operation.
Your logic that private prisons save the state money is questionable, at least in the long term. A private company might be able to save a few bucks on construction, since a state bid is sometimes limited to in-state contractors. And they might to be able to lowball staff wages and benefits by circumventing public employee unions and state hiring practices. But the real dollar savings are slight if they exist at all. A state-run prison operates at cost, without the markup needed for profit. A private prison is prone to cutting corners and maximizing profit, and generally provides a sub-par service.
More to the point, the state has a responsibility to provide reasonable care and safety to prisoners and private prisons often default on this. When a prisoner is sentenced, the state takes away most of his rights, including his right to self-defense, right to privacy, right to seek medical care, etc. What we often forget is that these people are still citizens, and having taken away some of their rights the state must make an heroic attempt to preserve others. Otherwise you have cases like this one where a prisoner was permanently brain-damaged while guards (at a private prison) stood by watching. Or the Massachusetts case wherin a young man, imprisoned for a short time on a minor drug charge was raped and given AIDS. (That one did happen in a corrupt state-run prison). At least the state has a few more legal protections and added oversight. The Massachusetts man in question finally did recieve a civil settlement before he died.
If you question the legitimacy of private prison operators lobbying for enhanced criminal penalties, you might want to take a look at these:
Jan Brewer’s CCA Money
Locking up criminals doesn’t enhance safety?
I never claimed that private prisons save the state money. In point of fact, they don’t. They cost at least as much to run as government prisons. That’s why I agreed with what RealityChuck wrote.
Because the prison company lobbyists will be braying about how this will increase costs and taxes, and how there haven’t been any riots for the past year so there will never be riots in the future. There are no hard facts for this kind of situation. It is all a matter of risk management, and, as we’ve seen all too often, private companies often such at risk management when it gets in the way of the bottom line.
A bit late for the people killed in the riot, isn’t it? When the financial system melts down, it is a bit late to say, oops, we might have regulated a teensy bit more.
Corporate management, whose duty is to the stockholders, have strong incentives to minimize costs at the expense of risk, because in the short term they win - until the odds catch up to them.
Efficiency at the corporate financial level doesn’t map to efficiency for the society as a whole.
Given our society today, that somehow doesn’t make me feel any better. They can spend their money within a state to elect pro-prison candidates - who with financial clout will stand against them?
Where, exactly did I say that?
But in fact, it doesn’t always. Incarcerating people for victimless crimes, for example, has very little to do with public safety. I question whether rounding up undocumented workers in Jan Brewer’s Arizona and lodging them in a (CCA operated) facility has any measurable effect on the overall crime rate - which, incidentally was declining at the same time CCA lobbyists were making their hard-sell pitch for more prisons. Enhanced penalties and lengthy prison sentences in lieu of rehabilitative efforts do nothing to reduce crime, and may in fact have a negative impact on crime rates.
Then why on earth are you advocating for them?
SS
Then our corporate lapdog representatives need to be shown the door until they are servants of the people instead of servants to the lobbyists.
I happen to agree with you but how is this any different than any lobbyist anywhere else?
Lobbyists are here, they lobby.
If you start taking away the ability to lobby (which I would be on-board with) then you have people saying that their favorite lobby really isn’t a lobby (because they do GOOD things, not like those other lobbyists)
Apparently I misunderstood you then. You cited things like seat belt, helmet, and cell phone-type laws as enhancing safety and seemed to be making the point that what prison corporations were supposedly lobbying for did not meet this criteria.
I’m not advocating for them. I think of it as advocating for rational discourse - the idea that a debate should be decided by appeals to reason not emotion.
If somebody argued that we should be legalize marijuana, I’d agree with them. But if he said the reason we should legalize marijuana is because it prevents cancer, I’d question his evidence. And if his evidence was that he smoked marijuana and never had cancer while his father had cancer and didn’t smoke marijuana, I’d point out the fallacy of his argument. Just because I agree with a conclusion, I’m not going to excuse faulty reasoning that led to it.
Most prisons, including corporate prisons, are run under the standards of the American Correctional Association. They are a non-partisan non-governmental agency which studies prison management and issues reports on how prisons should be run. They set standards on issues like how many prisoners there are per guard.
Because for-profit prisons have a captive audience, in both the pun and non-pun sense. Once a city/county/state switches to a for profit prison model, it’s not like they can review it in 5 years and decide “Nope, isn’t working, shut it down.” Once the prison is build, and the government run prison is shut down, it become very hard to go back. You would pretty much have to start from scratch, building a new prison, hiring and training new staff, setting up associated services. Mean while, you would still need to be housing your current prisoners someplace, while paying to build the new prison.
Think of the power grid. Once power generation is privatized, how do you go back? Even if the service provided becomes unreliable or expensive, the government isn’t going to rush out and immediately have replacement power plants. Think of California and it’s brownouts of a few years ago.
Instead, the private company now holds almost a monopoly. While it is possible for someone else to come in and complete, it’s not really feasible.
If by “nobody,” you mean “you,” then sure. But I’ve explained it before, as have several others. Lemme try again:
Coca-Cola lobbies to have sodas in high schools. Laws pass to allow this. Result: kids are a little bit unhealthier.
Insurance companies lobby to require seat belts. Laws pass to require this. Result: people are a little bit less likely to die in a collision.
Native American Casino industry lobbies to maintain their monopoly on gambling. Laws to relax gambling restrictions fail. Result: people have to drive farther to piss away their money.
How is this different from the prison industry?
Prison industry lobbies to incarcerate more people for longer periods. Laws pass to require this. Result: people spend their lives locked away unnecessarily.
It’s not the restrictions they work under that are different. It’s not their methods that are different. It’s the horrible results of their lobbying that’s so pernicious.
You might come back with another industry whose lobbying results in equally pernicious effects. If I agree that the effects are equally pernicious, I’m pretty likely to condemn that industry as well, and say that it ought not be privatized.
sigh Why do my IMHO threads always get moved here?
This sounds an awful lot like a topic that Michael Moore.(supporter of the far left) touched on in his movie, Capitalism: A Love Story…
Our crime rate is dropping across the country while our prison population grows. Weird isn’t it.
One a person gets into the penal system, they are fair game for exploitation. A kid in jail will serve a longer term because a prison business will make money off keeping him in jail.
In Pennsylvania it was found that judges were being paid to sentence kids to jail terms. They were merely fucking a kids life up to make money. That is a huge problem. But in varying degrees ,the for profit prison system is guaranteed to produce horrible lacks of justice. It can not and will not be cleaned up. It has to be ended.
Doesn’t seem weird to me. Most of the people in prison are repeat offenders, and people who failed when given the benefit of probation or some other community supervision such as home detention.
If you lock up people who are committing a lot of crime, why would you be surprised that the crime rate goes down?
I do not think for profit prisons need more laws. I think law abiding people need more and longer prison sentences for those the break the laws we already have. I do not worry about the large number of criminals in prison. I worry about the large number of criminals out of prison. I want them put in prison. I want them to stay there for a very long time. Most are too stupid to educate and too vicious to rehabilitate. We would be better off if they had never been born. The only way to get any value out of them is through prison labor.
Any advocacy group I support has much less money than the corporations, and goals that are likely to be more attractive to the public. Advocacy groups I support do not need to bribe politicians. They only need to get their message out.
One of the few social experiments that has really worked has been the increase in the incarceration rate.
From 1960 to 1970 the prison population declined from 212,953 to 196,429, even though the national population increased. The crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants rose from 1,887.2 to 3,984.5, even though poverty declined.
From 1980 to 2000 the prison population increased from 315,974 to 1,428,187. The crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants has declined from 5,950.0 to 4,124.8. The crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants has continued to decline, despite the Great Recession, to 3,465.5 in 2009.
http://www.jacksonprogressive.com/issues/lawenforcement/punishment.pdf
A compelling argument against a high incarceration rate has been the high cost of incarceration. If prisons could be operated for profit, this argument would no longer compel.
There is another story from NPR a couple years ago talking about the influence of prison unions and for-profit prisons on California’s “3 Strikes” law, so it isn’t inconceivable that they might be trying to push for tougher sentencing laws in other states as well. Seen here.
I agree with others here in that they are really just another special interest group, but one that has an overall detrimental effect on society as a whole. A few wasted bucks on a bomber no one needs or a bridge to nowhere certainly isn’t good, but those things don’t intentionally deprive our citizens of freedom.
I think it’s really just a side of effect of ‘socio-criminal apathy’ if I can invent a term. People can’t really agree on why we even need or should have prisons, what crimes should warrant their use, what their ultimate goal should be, how to reach that goal, etc; so their use reverts to “out of sight, out of mind” for law-breakers.
The hospital analogy has been rightfully shot down, but let me throw another log on that fire as well. In an effort to reduce follow up costs from nosocomial (hospital acquired) infections, medicare watches patients after they are discharged. If they show signs of infection within a certain time frame, payments to the hospital (for the initial stay) are reduced or withheld completely. Why shouldn’t prisons be held to a similar standard? As far as I can see from most of these NPR reports, successful reintegration of prisoners back into society is a low or non-existent priority for most of these for-profit prisons. It would be no different that surgeons wearing dirty gloves from operation to operation.