http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090211/D969KKDG0.html

2/12/2009 4:53:48 PM

You anti capitalist! Come on, if the prisoners don't like their treatment at one private prison, can't they just choose another...free market and all?

[Edited on February 12, 2009 at 4:58 PM. Reason : .]

2/12/2009 4:58:47 PM

Quote :

"PAY OUTA JAIL"

2/12/2009 6:33:27 PM

private prisons are nothing new, especially out west

2/12/2009 10:20:42 PM

um, this situation is about corrupt judges more so than the notion of private prisons.

Corrupt judges are going to abuse the system for their own benefit whether prisons are private or public. It just may not be in the same way.

2/12/2009 10:34:40 PM

Superjail.

2/12/2009 11:35:09 PM

^^ you find me a civilisation without corrupt judges and i'll support private prisons there

2/14/2009 11:43:15 AM

Wait, are you insane? Because we have corrupt judges I refuse to support government run prisons. Privately run prisons (especially wardens) can be sued when they kill someone. The wardens of government run prisons have administrative immunity for themselves and it is impossible to bankrupt their employer for bad behavior.

That said, why not let prisoners choose their prison? In a privately run prison market, there is no reason not too. The government offers an open contract with high penalties for escape and a fixed fee paid per prisoner, and from there prisoners choose where they want to be encarcerated. It would have eliminated this instance of corrpution, as the convincted would be likely to choose a different prison from that of the corrupt prison owner. It can even be a national system with the difference between states only being the fee they will pay. From there, if the prisoner wants a better prison than their state will pay, they can pay the difference.

2/14/2009 12:11:03 PM

and on the opposite corner of insanity....

[Edited on February 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM. Reason : asdf]

2/14/2009 12:37:05 PM

Quote :

"why not let prisoners choose their prison? In a privately run prison market, there is no reason not too. "

crap like this mental jackoff is what gives libertarians a bad name.

2/14/2009 12:54:38 PM

I'd rather not have private prisons or many prisons at all, but if we insist on sending so many people to prison, why not let prisoners pick among whatever security level they're assigned? Maybe have an admissions process or something for the more competitive ones?

I've never liked the idea that some dude who really wants to improve himself ends up in the same place as some guy who doesn't give a shit.

2/14/2009 1:02:43 PM

^^You do realize he was being sarcastic, right?

nevermind, thought you were quoting the second post of the thread.

[Edited on February 14, 2009 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2009 2:19:49 PM

Quote :

"crap like this mental jackoff is what gives libertarians a bad name."

Hur, this is a forum on the internet, what do you expect? I have never given a second thought to how prisons should be organized until I read Fail Boats post, and I couldn't think of a reason why it was a bad idea. As such, instead of name calling, since it is so obvious, surely a single sentence can point out the flaw in my logic? If privatising the prison system is a bad idea so be it, but as it is I have no logical reason to believe it is.

2/14/2009 3:48:12 PM

Premise 1) Privatizing everything is a good idea.
Premise 2) Prisons are a thing.
---------------------------------
Conclusion) Privatizing prisons is a good idea.

My logic urr-tight, somebody point out the deductive flaw or get out A=A

2/14/2009 3:52:07 PM

Privatizing everything is not the solution. Prisons provide a societal function, not a market-based one. While many lessons about efficiency and elimination of waste can be derived from market principles, its is not a business enterprise.

2/14/2009 3:58:41 PM

^

2/14/2009 4:19:34 PM

Quote :

"Premise 1) Privatizing everything is a good idea."

I found the flaw in your logic. Before you can make such a statement you must prove that there is no thing where privatization is a non-good idea, which is impossible as you cannot test the privatization of mole worms on Venus.

Quote :

"Privatizing everything is not the solution. Prisons provide a societal function, not a market-based one. While many lessons about efficiency and elimination of waste can be derived from market principles, its is not a business enterprise."

The presence of prisons provides the society function, not the means of their operation. If God offered to provide prison services to society free of charge forever, this would not in any way curtail the societal effects of prisons (incarceration as punishment, incarceration as isolation, incarceration as deterrent).

So, again, given the list of public goods that prisons offer, which of them is harmed by privatisation? I have suggested that three public goods are helped by privatisation (treatment of prisoners since they can go elsewhere, cost savings since now we have a market to tell us how much incarceration really costs, and anti-corruption effects by curtailing the prison-industrial complex).

2/14/2009 4:34:38 PM

Quote :

"I couldn't think of a reason why it was a bad idea. As such, instead of name calling, since it is so obvious, surely a single sentence can point out the flaw in my logic"

sorry i was just trolling

2/14/2009 5:42:24 PM

picking your prison defeats the purpose of prison.

2/14/2009 11:33:41 PM

we would save so much money if we just killed whoever commits a crime.

2/15/2009 11:07:20 AM

^^^ And thus we have the flaw in my logic. Damn internet.

^^ Prisons serve many purposes, none of which are defeated by picking your prison. (incarceration as punishment, incarceration as isolation, incarceration as deterrent)

2/15/2009 11:36:36 AM

Private prisons need more regulation.

There was a case recently where one prison owner in Ga. I think was skimming money from the food budget for his personal bank account. With the law being money not spent on food could be kept. That's not ripe for abuse or anything...

2/15/2009 11:51:27 AM

Of course it is ripe for abuse. Just as a passing a law requiring all shoppers to shop at Food Lion would be ripe for abuse.

Competition for prisoners would make it irrelevant if a prison warden decided to take all the incarceration fee home with him: the prisoners, faced with a crappy prison, would go be incarcerated elsewhere when their annual transfer request comes up.

2/15/2009 3:39:31 PM

I think you're misunderstanding the point, LoneSnark. The point is that people who are in prison have had much of their decision-making abilities revoked by society because presumably, they made some very bad decisions and demonstrated that they cannot be trusted (ignoring the unfortunate case of innocent, wrongfully-imprisoned individuals, of course). While you shouldn't have to endure rat-infested shitholes or worry about getting shanked or raped, you also are not meant to be happy in any way while in prison. You are meant to reflect on the mistakes you have made and pay your restitution by serving your time. Being able to move to a "better" prison detracts from that punishment. What you're prescribing would convert prisons from places of rehabilitation to glorified get-away resorts.

At least, that is how I understand it.

2/15/2009 3:53:14 PM

Quote :

"Being able to move to a "better" prison detracts from that punishment."

Not really. It's still a prison. If the problem is that this "better" prison is too "good", then deal with that as a separate issue, as we already do for prisons that are too "good". Once dealt with, prison is prison is prison. Allowing prisoners to choose their prison doesn't mean they get out early. They still sleep in a cell. It's still a prison. I just don't see how this would detract from the punishment.

Quote :

"What you're prescribing would convert prisons from places of rehabilitation to glorified get-away resorts."

That's fucking ridiculous.... How would it change anything? Once a year, they could be relocated to a different cell in a different prison. That's a "glorified get-away resort"? You're detracting from your argument by saying things like that.

Quote :

"Prisons serve many purposes, none of which are defeated by picking your prison. (incarceration as punishment, incarceration as isolation, incarceration as deterrent)"

Exactly.

2/15/2009 5:01:29 PM

Quote :

"If the problem is that this "better" prison is too "good", then deal with that as a separate issue, as we already do for prisons that are too "good"."

What ^ said. If it turns out that the current fee paid to incarcerate prisoners results through the market in steak for dinner and plush comfortable beds, then the state legislature should slash the fee it is paying. Some prisons will go bankrupt and prisoners will enjoy overcrowding and slashed food budgets.

But if it truely a problem for prisoners to not hate living in prison, then we would have a problem for prisoners to supliment their incarceration fee so they can go into a prison more expensive than their state will pay for. But it should be easy to enforce a contract rule against such contributions by just limiting their choice to prisons that have rates below their state's chosen fee.

2/15/2009 5:29:13 PM

are we really arguing about prisons? Who cares, they're criminals therefore forfeit their right to being treated like human beings.

2/15/2009 5:58:33 PM

True, but non-criminals are forced to pay taxes to imprison criminals, are forced to serve prison sentences when the prison-industrial complex corrupts the judicial system, and are forced to pay taxes to cover lawsuits from mistreated prisoners.

As such, since privatizing the prison system would help alleviate these three problems, I think it is worth discussing among non-criminals.

2/15/2009 7:22:38 PM

The violations that happened here were not caused by State run prisons. They were caused by private prisons.

Furthermore, a jailed convict should have no right to determine what prison they are sent to.

2/15/2009 7:31:56 PM

I can see it now.

All the Latin Kings will go to one prison and after awhile completely take it over. Then we will have the national guard attack the private prison.

2/15/2009 8:40:41 PM

Quote :

"Who cares, they're criminals therefore forfeit their right to being treated like human beings."

Abolish the entire prison system, both public and private.

2/16/2009 2:17:53 AM

Quote :

"Abolish the entire prison system, both public and private"

lol... what?

Quote :

"All the Latin Kings will go to one prison"

Official: The race card has been played.

I considered this and can't decide how good or bad it is. On the one hand, prisoners tend to self-segregate as it is. This seems bad, but is it? California used to assign cellmates by race and not randomly, but a recent supreme court ruling forced them to abandon this race-based policy. Should private prisons be restricted by the civil rights act from having race-based policies? Certainly public prisons should...

Allowing racist prisoners to choose a prison with a large population of members of their own race: good? bad? How about an openly non-racist prison, where actual non-racist prisoners can go to escape the racism normally associated with prison?

Quote :

"I've never liked the idea that some dude who really wants to improve himself ends up in the same place as some guy who doesn't give a shit."

I agree. And I'd add that I've never liked the idea that some non-racist dude who really wants avoid racism ends up in the same place as some racist guy who wants to start shit.

[Edited on February 16, 2009 at 3:44 AM. Reason : ]

2/16/2009 3:38:02 AM

^^AHA

And I'd like to abolish all but a couple.

If we abolish prisons, what will we do with the existing infrastructure though?

Take off all the bars and locks and house the homeless!

Shit, I'm solving problems left and right, y'all.

2/16/2009 8:03:34 AM

Quote :

"Once a year, they could be relocated to a different cell in a different prison. That's a "glorified get-away resort"?"

Then everybody will just try to go to the prisons with "steak for dinner and plush comfortable beds."

Once again you've missed the point. If you're in prison, you have lost the ability to control your circumstances. You do not get to choose to go to another prison just because you're tired of mystery-meat Fridays. You do not get to choose anything for yourself until you finish your time.

Quote :

"Who cares, they're criminals therefore forfeit their right to being treated like human beings."

Disagreed. For better or for worse they are still people, and thus deserve a chance to reflect upon their mistakes and learn from their ways. The time spent in prison is meant to help them do just that. Certainly there are criminals who have committed crimes so heinous that they deserve to rot away for the rest of their natural lives, but nobody's suggesting or condoning Shawshank Redemption levels of mistreatment.

2/16/2009 9:16:46 AM

Quote :

"Then everybody will just try to go to the prisons with "steak for dinner and plush comfortable beds."

There are not, and would not be prisons like that. LoneSnark used that phrase in the context of saying that it would never happen -- which it wouldn't. You are being ridiculous -- such an absurd conclusion robs you of your credibility.

Quote :

"Once again you've missed the point."

No, I haven't missed "the point", I've just disagreed with it.

Quote :

"If you're in prison, you have lost the ability to control your circumstances."

That may currently be the case, but you only seem able to support it with your opinion. You can't simply use the status quo to justify the status quo. You have to give reasons, and so far, your only reason is "I don't think prisoners should get to choose this." (opinion)

Quote :

"You do not get to choose to go to another prison just because you're tired of mystery-meat Fridays."

Yes. And we're saying you should be able to. Again, simply repeating what the status quo is, doesn't justify it.

Quote :

"You do not get to choose anything for yourself until you finish your time."

You know what your problem is? You speak from emotion and not from logic. Read what you just posted: "You do not get to choose anything for yourself until you finish your time". That is 100% bullshit and you know it. It's the sentiment, the emotion, you meant to convey -- and that's not logical. Prisoners get to choose plenty. You said they can't choose anything. Well let's see: they can choose which window to look out of and which side of their mouth to chew on. There. Not much, but your "anything" statement is now false. Don't allow your emotions to make you state things with "never", "always", "anything", etc. These words are usually the wrong ones to use.

Quote :

"abolish prisons"

OK, I'll bite. What retarded (leftist?) bullshit is this? Abolish prisons?
Are you fucking stupid?

[Edited on February 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM. Reason : ]

2/16/2009 10:29:29 AM

The first fallacy with allowing prisoners to chose their location of imprisonment is the fact that the state, not the incarcerated, is the consumer of prison services.

Since a prisoner has demonstrated his inability to self-discipline and live within the laws of society he is therefore subject to the control of the state until his or her punishment is completed. Now, how much control he is subject to is a matter of debate, but given the nature of "hard" criminals, where prison is more of a job-fair than a punishment, allowing prisoners to self-organize does not appear to serve the interests of the society that is paying for their incarceration.


Now, if you want to argue that there are thousands in prison who don't rightly belong there, that is a judicial debate. If you want to argue that there are laws on the book that are unjust, that is a legislative debate. But the purpose of imprisonment itself is clear, to separate those who cannot live within society's laws -- not norms, but laws -- from society itself.

2/16/2009 10:49:27 AM

I'll concede that at this time I can't find a good, logical argument for why prisoners shouldn't be allowed to shuffle themselves around. But I have to ask, who does this option benefit? The prisoners, certainly, but since prison is a service to society by virtue of it removing dangerous individuals from society, what can society hope to gain by allowing prisoners to do this? Basically, WHY should prisoners be allowed to do this?

Quote :

"You said they can't choose anything. Well let's see: they can choose which window to look out of and which side of their mouth to chew on. There. Not much, but your "anything" statement is now false. Don't allow your emotions to make you state things with "never", "always", "anything", etc. These words are usually the wrong ones to use."

Now you're just being a semantics whore. You know perfectly well what I meant. You badger me for arguing from emotion instead of logic, and then you pull this kind of crap. You can tell me my credibility is null all you want after you're done taking a good look in the mirror.

[Edited on February 16, 2009 at 10:57 AM. Reason : actually, I think ^ gave me my logical reason. Thanks ]

2/16/2009 10:56:37 AM

Ah, I can see it now.

Step 1: Get privately owned prison.
Step 2: Have mafia buy into the pockets of the higher-ups of said prison
Step 3: Have all indicted members of said mafia go to this specific prison
Step 4: Use prison as a second base of operation
Step 5: Profit

Obviously this is a worse-case scenario, but it certainly has to be taken into consideration when you talk about BOTH privatizing prisons AND giving prisoners the option to go anywhere they want. A more likely scenario is that these privately run prisions could be bought into and allow certain groups much more freedom and communication than otherwise allowed.

------

Also, while I do fear prison violence due to multiple gangs being in the same holding areas, I also fear the idea of the potential for prisons to hold high populations of any one gang. If you don't understand the implications of an entire prison-yard potentially being well organized, you certainly haven't thought this plan out enough, or even at all. Based on your blanket statement, "That said, why not let prisoners choose their prison? In a privately run prison market, there is no reason not too.", I'd wager for the "or even at all" argument.

[Edited on February 16, 2009 at 11:15 AM. Reason : .]

2/16/2009 11:10:11 AM

what i should've made the time to say:

Quote :

"Privatizing everything is not the solution. Prisons provide a societal function, not a market-based one. While many lessons about efficiency and elimination of waste can be derived from market principles, its is not a business enterprise."

but yes, corrupt judges = one of the main reasons i'm against privatizing this

2/16/2009 11:44:14 AM

Corrupt Judges should be executed by burning!

2/16/2009 12:43:25 PM

Quote :

"Now, how much control he is subject to is a matter of debate, but given the nature of "hard" criminals, where prison is more of a job-fair than a punishment, allowing prisoners to self-organize does not appear to serve the interests of the society that is paying for their incarceration."

JCASHFAN, society gets free information out of the process. The state will be freed from the hassle and corruption of monitoring prisons for constitutionally mandated quality, cost effectiveness, and safety by charging the prisoners themselves with that responsibility. The prisoners are the best charged with monitoring quality and safety issues, why not put them in charge?

Quote :

"I'll concede that at this time I can't find a good, logical argument for why prisoners shouldn't be allowed to shuffle themselves around. But I have to ask, who does this option benefit? The prisoners, certainly, but since prison is a service to society by virtue of it removing dangerous individuals from society, what can society hope to gain by allowing prisoners to do this? Basically, WHY should prisoners be allowed to do this?"

Society gains four ways:
1. Society will save money by placing wardens (owner/operators) into the business of keeping costs down since every dollar saved by the prison they get to keep. As costs fall, the fee paid by states can fall, saving the tax payer money.
2. Society will save the imbezzlement introduced by government operation of prisons: contractors charging thousands over market for toilet seats, embezling money from the food budget, all which drives up costs which must be paid by taxpayers.
3. Society will save the corruption introduced by government operation of prisons: wardens bribing judges to imprison the innocent so they can milk the taxpayer further.
4. Society will save the lawsuit losses introduced by government operation of prisons: wardens are immune from lawsuit and prosecution for killing prisoners, but the taxpayer is not.

Under a privatized system, if a prison is poorly run, suffers imbezzlement, suffers corruption, or suffers lawsuit losses, then it will go bankrupt and the prisoners will go to other prisons, society losses nothing by a little choice for prisoners (the owners lose everything). Meanwhile, under a government run system these losses are suffered every year without end by the nations taxpayers.

Quote :

"Then everybody will just try to go to the prisons with "steak for dinner and plush comfortable beds.""

And taxpayers, reading about steak for dinner and plush comfortable beds complain to their legislatures, which slash the fee paid to prisons. The cost to the state plummets, some prisons go bankrupt, overcrowding sets in, and steak dinners get replaced with mystery meat.

Quote :

"Once again you've missed the point. If you're in prison, you have lost the ability to control your circumstances. You do not get to choose to go to another prison just because you're tired of mystery-meat Fridays. You do not get to choose anything for yourself until you finish your time."

And society gains what from that? I ask, because your desired loss of choice comes at a high cost to taxpayers, surely a cost/benefit analysis would be prudent?

Quote :

"Obviously this is a worse-case scenario, but it certainly has to be taken into consideration when you talk about BOTH privatizing prisons AND giving prisoners the option to go anywhere they want."

Ahh, but CapnObvious, let me point out the obvious: the current system already allows organized crime to choose its own prison: all it must do is influence the judge, or the state head of prisons, or any single legislator to get a prisoner transferred. And there is nothing to stop organized crime from taking over a state-run prison; they are called organized crime for a reason. All I am suggesting is that this ability to choose your prison be extended from just the well connected to everyone.

[Edited on February 16, 2009 at 2:13 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/16/2009 2:10:29 PM

If criminals knew how to make good decisions, they wouldn't be prisoners. It's absurd to think letting prisoners choose their prisons is really a good decision in any meaningful way. There's no way, in the real world, such a system would ever work.

It would cause more problems than it solves, ultimately requiring even more regulation or a complete restructuring of the system.

You have to try and see the forest through the trees, as they say.

2/16/2009 3:11:50 PM

Quote :

"If criminals knew how to make good decisions, they wouldn't be prisoners."

Are you suggesting prisoners would lack the ability to judge a good prison when they saw one? I would suggest that it would be non-prisoners which would be incapable of judging prison quality, just as it should be improbable for the amish to judge what makes a good television.

Quote :

"It would cause more problems than it solves"

Such as?

2/16/2009 3:18:56 PM

Quote :

"Are you suggesting prisoners would lack the ability to judge a good prison when they saw one? "

This is exactly what I am suggesting.

Quote :

""It would cause more problems than it solves" Such as?"

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.

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.

And then there is the outside case of prisons getting too much money and doing things like in the movie Death Race, and actually creating more criminals.

All of this could be prevented my more regulation, but that in itself is a problem too, isn't it?

2/16/2009 3:34:07 PM

well then why dont we just put all the prisoners on an island somewhere and let them figure it out

2/16/2009 3:47:45 PM

Quote :

"OK, I'll bite. What retarded (leftist?) bullshit is this? Abolish prisons?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_abolition_movement

Quote :

"Take off all the bars and locks and house the homeless!"

Sounds like a plan.

2/16/2009 4:34:55 PM

Quote :

"The prisoners are the best charged with monitoring quality and safety issues, why not put them in charge?"

Because you've removed any opportunity cost from the situation. The prisoner will invariably chose the nicer option without regard to the cost since they aren't bearing it.


In order to attract the most number of prisoners (and the greatest sum of taxpayer money) prisons will initially cater to prisoners. The more "efficient" prisons will quickly fill up and the less efficient ones will close down. With the rather high barriers of entry to establishing a prison, you will effectively develop an overcrowded monopoly in the prison industry. 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. Unfortunately, those most directly impacted by these decisions will be current and future prisoners who, since they aren't the end consumer of the prison system, will have relatively little say at this point.


As far as operation of the prison by prisoners, the ones who were serving the longest sentences would be the ones with the most incentive to be in charge. How do you propose who will be in charge be decided? By vote? Again, the most violent and well organized groups will quickly rise to the top while minor offenders will be crowded out and often recruited into the more violent gangs simply in order to survive prison.

Quote :

"Society will save the imbezzlement introduced by government operation of prisons"

Are you arguing that a prison bureaucracy run by criminals would be free of embezzlement? Especially by prisoners already serving a life sentence? Please.


Of course, your argument would be that prisoners would simply chose to move to a different penitentiary, but I've already addressed that. If anything, the status of prisoners (by your own admission) would return to the status-quo with the addition of an entire industry whose best interest would be to incarcerate as many offenders as possible. This isn't to imply that the current system is without its own massive flaws, I simply see no benefit whatsoever in mass privatization of prisons.

[Edited on February 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM. Reason : also, I find the concept of anarchist "organizations" to be ridiculous]

2/16/2009 4:35:57 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "It would cause more problems than it solves" Such as?"

1. this has been covered plenty of times in this thread so far. 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.

[qoute]As costs fall, the fee paid by states can fall, saving the tax payer money. [/quote]


2. who is the say that costs will actually fall or that any money will be saved. These prisons would still essentially be contract workers for the government, and citing the Iraq reconstruction, it becomes clear that this will not always lead to efficient use of funds. 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, unless its a federal prison to close. What is there to guarantee that the remaining prisons would have the room available for new people.

Quote :

"he state will be freed from the hassle and corruption of monitoring prisons for constitutionally mandated quality"

3. I disagree. Just as with a myriad of private institutions the government would still be required to mandate the constitutional functionality of the system at hand, regardless if it was directly under their control or not.

Quote :

"Society will save the imbezzlement introduced by government operation of prisons"

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. With the incentive drive a profit the nature alone would be to act as corrupt as possible. In this sense an understood rule of collusion could form and prisons could become universally poor with not benefit being seen by the prisoner at all. Not saying the prisoner should get a benefit, merely refuting the point that the prisoner would have a plethora from which to choose. In order to prevent this from happening government oversight would be brought in, regardless if it would help or not.

Quote :

"3. Society will save the corruption introduced by government operation of prisons"

5. what moron said about wardens bribing lawyers to have their clients choose certain prisons would go here. Once again, corruption is not solved. Absence of complete government involvement and oversight does not mean lack of corruption. The prisons being run like the Blackwater military enforcers comes to mind.

Quote :

"Society will save the lawsuit losses introduced by government operation of prisons: "

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. This is one of the reasons why frivolous law suits are so bad. I image with the feel of immunity gone from the system there might be more law suits, some just and some not.


Given that the government would still have to be there for oversight, costs may not go down, and corruption would not be curbed, I cannot see a reason switching from the status quo to a new system. The benefits seem unjustifiable and intangible at best.

2/16/2009 4:49:04 PM

2/16/2009 4:54:05 PM

They're trying to build a prison,
They're trying to build a prison,

Following the rights movements
You clamped down with your iron fists,
Drugs became conveniently
Available for all the kids.
Following the rights movements
You clamped down with your iron fists,
Drugs became conveniently
Available for all the kids.

I buy my crack, I smack my bitch,
right here in Hollywood,
Nearly 2 million Americans are
Incarcerated in the prison system,
prison system of the U.S.

(They're trying to build a prison)
They're trying to build a prison,
They're trying to build a prison,
They're trying to build a prison,
(For you and me to live in)
Another prison system,
Another prison system,
Another prison system,
(For you and me)

Minor drug offenders fill your prisons
You don't even flinch
All our taxes paying for your wars
Against the new non-rich,
Minor drug offenders fill your prisons
You don't even flinch
All our taxes paying for your wars
Against the new non-rich,

I buy my crack, I smack my bitch,
right here in Hollywood,
The percentage of Americans in the prison system,
prison system has doubled since 1985.

(They're trying to build a prison)
They're trying to build a prison,
They're trying to build a prison,
They're trying to build a prison,
(For you and me to live in)
Another prison system,
Another prison system,
Another prison system,
(For you and me)
For you and I, For you and I, For you and I.
They're trying to build a prison,
They're trying to build a prison,
They're trying to build a prison,
For you and me,
Oh baby, you and me.
All research and sucessful drug policy shows
That treatment should be increased,
And law inforcement decreased,
While abolishing mandatory minimum sentences,
All research and successful drug policy shows
That treatment should be increased,
And law inforcement decreased,
While abolishing mandatory minimum sentences.

Utilizing drugs to pay for secret wars around the world.
Drugs are now your global policy,
Now you police the globe,

I buy my crack, I smack my bitch,
right here in Hollywood,
Drug money is used to rig elections,
And train brutal corporate sponsered
dictators around the world.

(They're trying to build a prison)
They're trying to build a prison,
They're trying to build a prison,
They're trying to build a prison,
(For you and me to live in)
Another prison system,
Another prison system,
Another prison system,
(For you and me)
For you and I, For you and I, For you and I.
They're trying to build a prison,
They're trying to build a prison,
They're trying to build a prison,
For you and me,
Oh baby, you and me.

2/16/2009 8:05:23 PM