Quote :

"The most obvious one being prisons that cater too much to the luxuries, rather than reform of punishment, whatever the legislators feel the prisons should be doing."

This is a true complaint... I think it could be a line in the operation contract that all prisoners get such treatment, but while it is easy to judge compliance as to escaping prisoners (are they here? No? That'll be $1.5 million for breach of contract), what does reform look like? Counciling? Group Therapy? I have no idea; maybe that part of prison life could still be state run?

Quote :

"Not to mention in increases the chances of corruption with prison operators giving kickbacks to lawyers or lobbyists for tricking the dumb criminals (which represents at least a plurality of criminals I imagine) to going to their prisons."

This is less of a problem. Such a behavior would probably be forbidden by the bar associations of the various states, so a lawyer would require a substantial bribe to do it. However, there is no guarantee all their charges will accept the prison suggestion (opting instead for a prison closer to their parents/wife/girlfriend/gang) and even then they will all move once they get the chance. As such, will the prison be able to earn back the entire bribe in a single year? Maybe, but I'd doubt it.

Quote :

"With the rather high barriers of entry to establishing a prison"

What high barriers are those? To start a prison all you should need is the following:
1. Post a bond to protect the government against contract breach (prisoners escaping)
2. Build a building
3. Advertise
4. Profit

Quote :

"This will be exacerbated by the prison's lobbying for stiffer and longer punishment for smaller and smaller offenses as this will increase their profit."

Possible, but unlikely. If the system is done right on a national/international basis, the benefits of tougher laws would be spread throughout the prisons of the world with an insurmountable free rider problem (we would all profit if all of us lobbied for stiffer penalties, but I would profit even more if I did not).

Quote :

"As far as operation of the prison by prisoners...Are you arguing that a prison bureaucracy run by criminals would be free of embezzlement?"

You failed to comprehend my meaning. The prisons would be run by the prisoners in the same sense that Food Lion is run by its customers. Prisons would be operated by their owners, and it would be their money on the line if they get punished by their stake holders (prisoners go elsewhere, the government charges them for breach of contract).

Quote :

"Mostly it would provide criminals the opportunity to organize themselves and continue to commit crimes and have further disregard for the laws of society while in prison, which would completely negate the reason for them being there to begin with."

How would that be any more prevalent under a private system, where wardens can be sued for allowing bad acts, compared to the current system where wardens have complete immunity even if their prisoners escape and kill?

Quote :

"To say that a bad prison would be shut down is over simplifying the issue at hand. Where would all the prisoners go? I imagine it would have to be some place in the state in which the crime was committed"

The same place customers go when a Burger King closes: next door. It is the natural state for competitive markets to over-supply capacity. It is only in state-run industries (such as schools and prisons) that shortages tend to be chronic. But the prison itself would not be going anywhere, and there would be no need to transfer the prisoners. The prison will declare bankruptcy and be sold off by its creditors to another company which will take over running the prison, only more carefully.

And the prisoners should not need to stay in one state unless they want too. I see no reason why a prison overseas with cheaper guard-labor should not be allowed to accept U.S. prisoners. That is why the prisons would be required to post bonds in the first place, to protect the government against any breach of contract.

Quote :

"4. Corruption and embezzlement would be just as likely in privately run prisons as they would in government controlled ones, if not more so. See privately run companies for examples."

Absolutely, but as I said before, when a government run institution becomes corrupt it will live on forever at tax payer expense. However, when a private company suffers corruption it finds itself liquidated by its creditors, sold off at firesale prices to new owners which will be more careful with who they let in charge.

Quote :

"6. Not quite. lawsuits would still cost the system money. Anything a courtroom is used it costs money from those who pay taxes and clog up the court system."

Then increase court costs. They are paid by the losers anyhow.

2/16/2009 9:19:59 PM

damn....

you really DO wear a beret and live in your parent's basement, don't you?

but seriously. what's sad is how you libertarians never see how divorced from reality you truly are.

2/16/2009 9:32:15 PM

Quote :

"1. Post a bond to protect the government against contract breach (prisoners escaping) 2. Build a building 3. Advertise 4. Profit"

I'm sorry, I couldn't help but laugh when you included #4. Are you really arguing that the cost of establishing a prison, not to mention securing the land upon which to do so and the inevitable NIMBY effect doesn't constitute a high barrier to entry?

Quote :

"Possible, but unlikely. If the system is done right on a national/international basis, the benefits of tougher laws would be spread throughout the prisons of the world with an insurmountable free rider problem (we would all profit if all of us lobbied for stiffer penalties, but I would profit even more if I did not)."

This is a rather convoluted paragraph with a lot of built in "ifs". I'm not sure why the prison lobby wouldn't act aggressively to promote its own interests and, sadly, I have no faith in the American public to find the time to aggressively resist.

^ In fairness, I consider myself a "small l" libertarian. It isn't that we're all this crazy, we just get ruined by guys like this.

2/16/2009 9:57:08 PM

Quote :

"I'm sorry, I couldn't help but laugh when you included #4. Are you really arguing that the cost of establishing a prison, not to mention securing the land upon which to do so and the inevitable NIMBY effect doesn't constitute a high barrier to entry?"

When someone says something is 'high' they usually mean in relation to something. As such, no, that is not a high barrier of entry compared to most other businesses in America.

Quote :

"This is a rather convoluted paragraph with a lot of built in "ifs". I'm not sure why the prison lobby wouldn't act aggressively to promote its own interests and, sadly, I have no faith in the American public to find the time to aggressively resist."

Look, I recognize the problems with the democratic system. But I assure you the first stage of lobbying from the nation's private prisons will be to regulate the prison system, perhaps even cartelize it like it so often does. Only then could they keep out entry from new competitors.

The reason they will not bother lobbying for increased criminal penalties is because that would not improve their profits, just as GM is not going to bother lobbying for lower driving ages (they may advocate it, but they will not spend their own money to get it). If they did, and were sucessful, the result would be a flood of new prisons coming online in a few months, filling whatever new market was created, often pushing profits lower than they were originally.

Now, the current system suffers this problem in spades. The Prison Guard Union and existing wardens have a monopoly over their territory, so any increase in demand immediately translates into higher profits for them alone (more guards paying union dues, a larger food budget to imbezzle, etc).

2/17/2009 12:41:18 AM

What are y'all tryna achieve with prisons exactly?

I mean, we gotta settle on a purpose before we can decide how they are best administrated.

2/17/2009 2:12:52 AM

Quote :

"you really DO wear a beret and live in your parent's basement, don't you?"

(I know you were hoping I'd respond to this.)
Hey joe_schmoe, first of all, expressing stereotypes weakens your overall credibility. (Assuming you had any in the first place.) Also, that particular stereotype is apparently authored by you, and can't be found anywhere else -- which is beyond lame. Of course, I could be mistaken, but I've asked you in the past to explain it, and you never have. Find some links that support the idea that this "beret-wearing, parent's basement-dwelling" stereotype for libertarians actually exists outside of your brain. Beret's are generally associated with french (rarely libertarians), soldiers (rarely libertarians,) artists, (not politics), etc. Dwelling in your parent's basement is generally for people without jobs or money. Libertarians usually value jobs and money, and tend to have them. Che-worshiping socialist losers are the ones that are generally thought to mooch on everyone. So, if you can't provide many (not just a couple) links to credible sources that show that this stereotype is actually held by someone other than you, then we'll assume you're just a irrational idiot. (We already know you are....)


GoldenViper

Quote :

"Abolish the entire prison system, both public and private..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_abolition_movement"

The wiki says that this movement is associated with anti-authoritarians. I never really viewed you "I love big brother" types as being anti-authoritarians. (left-wing "anarchists" have never made much sense.)

[Edited on February 17, 2009 at 7:45 AM. Reason : ]

2/17/2009 7:25:28 AM

Anarchists have traditionally been leftists. If we don't make much sense, we at least have a solid history of incoherence.

2/17/2009 6:17:54 PM

Quote :

"what's sad is how you libertarians never see how divorced from reality you truly are."

Says the person who has yet to realize what a pompous asshole he sounds like. All the time.

Seriously, who exactly is the one divorced from reality, here?

2/17/2009 6:29:19 PM

Quote :

" However, when a private company suffers corruption it finds itself liquidated by its creditors, sold off at firesale prices to new owners which will be more careful with who they let in charge. "

Four words from recent events: "Too big to fail"

If you think the pissing a moaning about how GM going bankrupt means the end of US civilization as we know it is annoying, wait till you see the fear mongering over a prison going bankrupt. "Rapists in the street, serial killers turned loose, drug dealers roaming free, dogs and cats living together!"

While government running doesn't solve this problem, we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking privatization will either.

[Edited on February 17, 2009 at 8:46 PM. Reason : sadf]

2/17/2009 8:46:08 PM

Has Lonesnark explained how a private industry bribing judges proves that private industry is better for running prisons?

2/17/2009 9:34:49 PM

Yes. He explained that a government monopoly, be it privately run or government run, will tend to corrupt the judicial system, as your example demonstrates: a government monopoly (the prison owner) bribed a government employee (the judge) for favorable regulations (convictions).

My suggestion is not just privatization, but what should go along with that: a competitive marketplace. In a competitive marketplace, the bribing of the judge would have been a waste of money, as the convicts would have likely gone to someone elses prison.

Quote :

"I mean, we gotta settle on a purpose before we can decide how they are best administrated."

My expectations for a prison are simple: keep convicts away from the rest of society, alive, and as comfortable as the resources society allocates to the task can manage. Making them feel powerless seems to me a waste of perfectly good resources.

[Edited on February 17, 2009 at 10:49 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/17/2009 10:43:56 PM

lofuckingl

why not just privatize the judiciary as well. That way defendants and plaintiffs get to decide what judges get to hear their cases.

2/17/2009 11:17:34 PM

I have thought of that, but concluded it would work poorly. While a private prison should have no trouble incarcerating unarmed men on its own property, a true court of law requires the backing of armed men in the form of not just the police but the military, a contrivance which a private court would be unable to muster.

2/17/2009 11:27:35 PM

^^ To a small degree we have that already. Mostly for small claims and civil matters, but private arbitration is becoming quite common.

2/17/2009 11:28:35 PM

^x4 I'm all for privatization too, but I draw the line somewhere. Prisons should be ran by the government. Even if it was privately ran, the government would have so much red tape and regulation that they might as well run the damned thing themselves. Hence we are back where we started. Just let the government handle it. There is less incentive for corruption that way.

[Edited on February 17, 2009 at 11:32 PM. Reason : -]

2/17/2009 11:31:25 PM

^ all my arguments to the contrary not withstanding? Have the decency to present a logical reason why "prison" automatically means "heavily regulated". They are currently heavily regulated because they must be to prevent the newspapers from filling up with stories of abuse and mis-management, a situation that would not occur in a competitive marketplace.

2/18/2009 11:17:43 AM

2/18/2009 11:19:59 AM

^
What's "infowars"*?... and where's his beret?
Hot pockets are overpriced and (at least used to) have trans fats (Oh but you're saying his mom buys them... fail and fail)
Also, I love what Al Gore has done to advance our environmental policy and the mandate to continue.
(environment > liberty.... which is why big L libertarians don't like me.)

Quote :

"Anarchists have traditionally been leftists. If we don't make much sense, we at least have a solid history of incoherence"

Sounds about right.

But really? No prisons?
If you don't remove repeat criminals from society, then what do you suggest we do with them?

[Edited on February 18, 2009 at 11:52 AM. Reason : *the infowars.com wiki looks like - moderate libertarians ≠ right-wing conspiracy nuts]

2/18/2009 11:38:16 AM

^ I suspect most anarchists would suggest you shoot them.

2/18/2009 11:45:51 AM

Quote :

"I suspect most anarchists would suggest you shoot them."

Oh really? While that's a possibility for rapists and murderers, anarchists typically favor restraint and rehabilitation along the lines of a mental hospital for the extreme cases. In The Dispossessed, violently anti-social folks seek refuge in therapy or face retribution from the friends and family of the victims. We assume such people would be rare after the revolution. We think the vast majority of current crime stems from the unjust and oppressive social system.

2/18/2009 9:31:28 PM

Quote :

"We assume such people would be rare after the revolution."

That's because you live in fantasy land, where people will be good and nice and dandy as soon as you strip them of government.

You glean this from the fact that apparently cavemen did not beat each other with heavy things.

2/19/2009 12:40:20 AM

It is an odd fact that crime rates today far exceed the crime rates prevalent in the 19th century. A time of extreme inequality (some died of malnutrition) and piss-poor police forces.

It does lend some credence to Vipers anarchistic assertion. Afterall, there was far less "system" back then.

But I mostly credit it to effective policing (no need for a trial; let's just beat the robber senseless right here) and lax reporting.

[Edited on February 19, 2009 at 1:16 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/19/2009 1:12:44 AM

^ It could also have something to do with more things being crimes. I mean, go back in time and you didn't see grade school kids being arrested for bringing steak knives and water pistols to school. Then there's the whole war on drugs thing.

2/19/2009 10:04:07 AM

Quote :

"That's because you live in fantasy land, where people will be good and nice and dandy as soon as you strip them of government."

We suspect that the vast majority of current crimes result from the unequal economic system and the soul-crushing social hierarchy. This doesn't mean that affairs will be magically harmonious once we smash capitalism and the state. As Shevek said at the end of The Dispossessed, freedom is never very safe. Conflict resolution under anarchism would be messy, varying with the personalities and issues involved. Far from perfection, but I'll choose that life over thugs, bosses, and oppression.

2/19/2009 1:12:03 PM

Suppose that private prisons could give us longer prison sentences with better conditions for inmates at the same cost.

I would tend to support this.


Bettering the conditions should help balance against longer sentences in terms of the "harshness" of punishment.

However, my best estimation from looking at the data is that violent crime has a large biological component and locking criminals up works because it gives time for their testosterone levels to fall naturally. The longer you lock them up the lower their rates fall too. Thus society gets a better deal.

2/19/2009 3:54:20 PM

Wait wait wait wait wait

Some of you actually don't see an issue with someone profiting by locking another person up?

Like

You don't see a certain, shall we say, conflict of interest there?

I mean I know you guys think its a good idea to have the care your health and well being be directly linked to a stock portfolio but...

2/19/2009 4:06:29 PM

^ So, hmm, you don't have a point, then?

2/19/2009 4:30:56 PM

^^ As a general rule, any time someone is doing something for someone else, they're profiting in some form or fashion. Government control over the prisons doesn't prevent people from profiting.

2/19/2009 4:51:05 PM

I think there are applications for what GoldenViper is describing right now, no Revolution necessary.

Incorrigible criminals really are very rare.

People want to improve themselves.

Falling back on prisons as a means to accomplish anything is just really, really lazy.

2/19/2009 5:13:31 PM

Quote :

"However, my best estimation from looking at the data is that violent crime has a large biological component and locking criminals up works because it gives time for their testosterone levels to fall naturally."

Sounds dubious. There's actually better evidence for violent behavior leading to higher testosterone levels than for the reverse. We humans ain't nearly so simple as to be ruled by hormones. See Poverty, Ethnicity, and Violent Crime by James F. Short. If that's too much trouble, click on the following link. The article reeks of evolutionary psychology, but it at least debunks the classic myth.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-testosterone-alone-doesnt-cause-violence

2/19/2009 5:22:11 PM

Lonesnark I know you're pretty daft dude but really think for one second.

My profit derives from stuffing as many human beings into as small of a land area as possible.

Hmm. Don't see any problems here at all

2/19/2009 5:55:12 PM

^^^ Quite true. The US incarceration rate should be a national embarrassment. Other countries put far fewer folks behind bars.

2/19/2009 6:11:14 PM

Quote :

"My profit derives from stuffing as many human beings into as small of a land area as possible. Hmm. Don't see any problems here at all"

So none of these incentives apply the current system, I presume? To review:

My budget relies on cramming as many people into a prison as humanly possible. Asking for more money means raising taxes or cutting other budgets, a politically unpopular move. No possible problems here at all.

My locality depends on employment in a local prison industry. Which means that if we stop imprisoning people for certain offenses, the prison population goes down and people lose jobs. There's just no possibility for a corrupting influence on the law.

Really? You're going to trot out the same species of complaints which could be in turn applied to our current system?

2/19/2009 6:28:29 PM

Quote :

"Castration experiments demonstrate that testosterone is necessary for violence, but other research has shown that testosterone is not, on its own, sufficient"

Doesn't this support the idea that there is a large biological component. Its not all testosterone of course, but testosterone is a big part of it. I know the tone of the article was anti-testosterone theory, but the biggest point they had is that it also goes the other way. True, but my understanding is the winning causes testosterone increases effect is weak.

Moreover, it is evidence that the reason older criminals reform is at least in part that their testosterone levels fall and they no longer feel the urge to commit violence, or if you prefer seek dominance.

My hypothesis is that you take men with high testosterone and put them in an environment where they believe pro-social behavior will not lead them to success. They turn to anti-social behavior. I.E., I might not be able to become a doctor but I can kick your ass and take your money.

Ideally, of course we would like to get them in a position where they focused their intensity on social positive ends. However, that is not easy and we cannot simply allow people to be victimized by crime while we figure out how to mainstream these guys.


So one solution is to hold them in detention until biology helps us out. Now, yes locking people up for 20 years on smaller charges seems harsh. This is why I suggest easing the conditions but lengthening the sentence.

2/19/2009 7:57:51 PM

I don't know what castration experiments they're talking about, but history shows you don't need balls to kick ass. Various eunuchs have assaulted, murdered, and fought, sometimes leading armies. China played around with military units including only the castrated. In current India, eunuch gangs commit countless crimes, some of them violent. As long as your body and mind function, you can kill under the right circumstances.

Besides, my understanding of prisons suggests that locking people up is the worst way to pacify them. Plenty of folks do time for a minor offense and end up going straight thug. Does this not happen to older people? If not, how long would they have to stay behind bars to avoid the effect?

2/20/2009 1:16:06 AM

^
The question is does being in jail cause them to go thug or

1) Were they on that path anyway. Sort of like smoking pot doesn't led people to heroin so much as anyone who predisposed to shooting heroin probably also doesn't have a problem smoking pot

2) The stigma of being an ex-con only increases their incentive to turn to anti-social behavior

As for the eunuchs, I don't really know much of that history. My understanding is that castration as punishment dramatically reduces recidivism. And, of course we know women are far less likely to commit violent crime. Again, they do of course but at far lower rates.

[Edited on February 20, 2009 at 10:22 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2009 10:21:07 AM

Quote :

"My budget relies on cramming as many people into a prison as humanly possible. Asking for more money means raising taxes or cutting other budgets, a politically unpopular move. No possible problems here at all."

I want you to right now go ahead and prove the profit motive for DOC right now. Go ahead, do it. Official call out.

Quote :

" My locality depends on employment in a local prison industry. Which means that if we stop imprisoning people for certain offenses, the prison population goes down and people lose jobs. There's just no possibility for a corrupting influence on the law. "

You're reaching for the stars and failing miserably. The US anti drug economics is its own discussion, and thats the only road you can go down where you might possibly be able to argue this point.

Quote :

" Really? You're going to trot out the same species of complaints which could be in turn applied to our current system? "

And it actually can't and you're reaching terribly far. Epic Fail. Try again.

2/20/2009 3:50:44 PM

Quote :

"I want you to right now go ahead and prove the profit motive for DOC right now. Go ahead, do it. Official call out."

Epic reading comprehension fail. Go home and try again.

Quote :

"You're reaching for the stars and failing miserably. The US anti drug economics is its own discussion, and thats the only road you can go down where you might possibly be able to argue this point."

Once again, try again. Plenty of localities depend upon specific approaches to law enforcement, and get pretty cranky when proposed alternatives - like diversions programs - start cutting down on prison populations. See, for instance, upstate New York.

Quote :

"And it actually can't and you're reaching terribly far. Epic Fail. Try again."

This coming from the person who can't even read. Yeah, dazzle us with your sparkling intellect.

Fail.

2/20/2009 4:26:45 PM

Quote :

"As for the eunuchs, I don't really know much of that history. My understanding is that castration as punishment dramatically reduces recidivism. And, of course we know women are far less likely to commit violent crime. Again, they do of course but at far lower rates."

But how much of the difference is cultural and how much biological? We don't have a pristine laboratory in which to test social issues. We can't control for culture. Every scientist and every subject has been conditioned one way or another.

2/20/2009 6:46:44 PM

Quote :

"See, for instance, upstate New York."

Yeah, I lived up there for a while. In some areas the big local business is the prison system and its supporting contractors. At one point, half of my neighbors worked for the local prison-industrial system. One neighbor, a guard, and another, a manager at one of the food contractors, were both very into the idea of increasing the prison population. They were always going on about how 3-strike laws for any class of felony, even non-violent ones, were brilliant and necessary. They also tried to sell me on the idea of life sentences for some drug crime first offenders.

At one point one of them admitted that you had to release some offenders eventually or else you run the risk of "over fishing" and then "depleting the spawning grounds." They were all also very much against the idea of any kind of rehabilitation. One of them went off on me when I asked why he didn't seem to like the idea of shrinking the prison population and reducing recidivism. He screamed that it was "pinkos" like me that were trying to put him out of business.

The aims of our society in punishing criminals is to both discourage the crime and to protect ourselves from these criminals. The first of these is directly counter to the interest of any prison-based industry. If you discourage too many crimes and prevent recidivism then you, as a prison corporation, are working yourself out of business. Since the desirable performance of a prison system is one in which it inches itself asymptotically towards obsolescence, this is not a function of the state that would benefit from market governance.

Market governance is most appropriate for functions whose ideal performance includes expansion and perpetuity. If something is a function whose ideal (as time goes to infinity) operation results in its incremental obsolescence, then the enlightened self interest involved in market economics is at cross purposes with the societal goals.

[Edited on February 21, 2009 at 12:41 PM. Reason : ]

2/21/2009 12:39:35 PM

^ win

i know some of you are very religious -- your religion being either that the free market is god or that the free market is satan -- and some of you simply need this sort of absolutism to validate your masculinity/decisiveness/quest for the alpha male status that you'll probably never achieve..

but try not to sacrifice civility and common sense at the altar of your bloodthirst

2/21/2009 3:51:45 PM