Potential Issue With Privatized Prisons....

[RighteousWar]

Sure, nobody can be forced to participate in "Rehab" programs, but maybe there should be a better incentive to participating. Like if "Inmate A" completes 1 year of "X Job Skills Training" then they get guaranteed time off of their sentence. Like 1 year off for 1 year of participation. Something like that.

I know many prisons do have programs to participate in, but obviously they're not effective enough. The US has the highest incarceration rate per capita in the world. That is absurd.

It boils down to what those folks consider "incentives". For some, never setting foot in a prison again is incentive enough!

Believe it, or not, many of the folks in jail/prison, have it better incarcerated than they do in the outside world. Some actually enjoy being locked up.

Ever seen that movie "Let's Go To Prison"? It may be a comedy, but it's also reality to a certain degree.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

It boils down to what those folks consider "incentives". For some, never setting foot in a prison again is incentive enough!

Believe it, or not, many of the folks in jail/prison, have it better incarcerated than they do in the outside world. Some actually enjoy being locked up.

Ever seen that movie "Let's Go To Prison"? It may be a comedy, but it's also reality to a certain degree.

Lets go to Prison is a pretty funny movie

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I sound irrational because I see breaking the law as breaking the law without carve outs for special unicorns? But your bias is showing again. I said drug crimes, you're just talking about marijuana above.

Your 2nd paragraph is all sorts of misconceptions. I said I think it would be a great idea to penalize private prisons for convicts that were re-arrested after release. I said it's a great idea because it would lead private prisons to try very hard to reduce recidivism. They would try hard to reduce recidivism, not that it's proven that they would succeed.

I then said it's a win-win for the taxpayer. If they succeeded, we get less recidivism and could apply it to public prisons. If they didn't succeed we'd end up paying them less for the prison services.

But all of that is irrelevant because I don't want to cut marijuana users a break when they violate the law? Here's something you'll enjoy reading so you can complain about grave injustices dealt to mj users, aka God's favorite drug customers: https://www.rt.com/viral/356085-study-marijuana-poor-uneducated/

Change it to cocaine then. It's still irrational to view snorting blow the same as violent crime. Only a moron would think that everything considered a crime is to be treated with the same level of seriousness or type of consequence.

I already said why the idea of fining prisons is a bad one. Not sure what you're trying to accomplish if it's not a reduction in prisoners and the subsequent harm from being labelled a convict. It can't be that though if you justify punishing people for drug use by pointing out it's a crime. That would be begging the question.

 

[panamaican]

Change it to cocaine then. It's still irrational to view snorting blow the same as violent crime. Only a moron would think that everything considered a crime is to be treated with the same level of seriousness or type of consequence.

I already said why the idea of fining prisons is a bad one. Not sure what you're trying to accomplish if it's not a reduction in prisoners and the subsequent harm from being labelled a convict. It can't be that though if you justify punishing people for drug use by pointing out it's a crime. That would be begging the question.

I don't equate the crimes. I equate breaking the law with breaking the law. I see breaking one law the same as breaking another law. I don't say "Johnny broke the law but since it's Law X and not Law Y, it's not really breaking the law..." I think that' silly. You might penalize the laws differently, certainly murder deserves a different sentence than dealing but the actor is still a criminal and deserves jail time for being one.

You're still not making any sense in your paragraphs about fines. I never said anything about reducing the number of prisoners being my goal. You've distracted yourself with the mj talk and missed the point. The point is "repeat offenders". Not "first time felons" and not avoiding being labelled a convict.

Penalizing prisons for repeat offenders provides an incentive for the prisons to try strategies to keep their inmates from returning to a life of crime. What form that would take is unknown. The point of putting out a financial incentive is to encourage them to experiment. Sooner or later, a viable solution might present itself.

 

[Rational Poster]

Sure, but you're saying it as though it's been misrepresented as an actual happening. This is a hypothetical thread and it was presented as such.

And there is plenty historical precedent for organizations drugging people without their knowledge in the US, I just don't know of a case taking place in a prison. It just seems like an ideal place for a case to come about of. You disagree?

I just think there are plenty of actual conspiracies to get worked up over rather then imagine totally new ones.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

I just think there are plenty of actual conspiracies to get worked up over rather then imagine totally new ones.

I don't think the idea in the OP is that much of a stretch...you must though. Why is that?

I would agree that there are plenty of other conspiracies to get up in arms about. We are not getting up in arms, we are here to speculate if something like that could happen and if there is anything in place to prevent it....

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't equate the crimes. I equate breaking the law with breaking the law. I see breaking one law the same as breaking another law. I don't say "Johnny broke the law but since it's Law X and not Law Y, it's not really breaking the law..." I think that' silly. You might penalize the laws differently, certainly murder deserves a different sentence than dealing but the actor is still a criminal and deserves jail time for being one.

You're still not making any sense in your paragraphs about fines. I never said anything about reducing the number of prisoners being my goal. You've distracted yourself with the mj talk and missed the point. The point is "repeat offenders". Not "first time felons" and not avoiding being labelled a convict.

Penalizing prisons for repeat offenders provides an incentive for the prisons to try strategies to keep their inmates from returning to a life of crime. What form that would take is unknown. The point of putting out a financial incentive is to encourage them to experiment. Sooner or later, a viable solution might present itself.

Ok. So it must infuriate you when cops give some people warnings or when prosecutorial discretion is employed. People broke the law but for some reason the actors within the criminal justice system don't do their job.

So you don't care about reducing the overall prison population? You just care that it's new people going in rather than repeat offenders? Yeah, I guess I missed that due to it not serving much of a purpose without the other things as well.

Yeah, keep repeating yourself on the prison fine thing as if I didn't already address it. Here's a reminder. I said that prisons would be incentivized to keep people inside longer since that's how they get paid and they won't be risking your fines. I also said it's un-American to punish people for the actions of others.

You referred to a prison population problem and dismissed 25% being incarcerated for drug crimes as not being a big part of it. What's this prison population problem you referred to previously that you seem to now be claiming no such mention of?

 

[panamaican]

Ok. So it must infuriate you when cops give some people warnings or when prosecutorial discretion is employed. People broke the law but for some reason the actors within the criminal justice system don't do their job.

So you don't care about reducing the overall prison population? You just care that it's new people going in rather than repeat offenders? Yeah, I guess I missed that due to it not serving much of a purpose without the other things as well.

Yeah, keep repeating yourself on the prison fine thing as if I didn't already address it. Here's a reminder. I said that prisons would be incentivized to keep people inside longer since that's how they get paid and they won't be risking your fines. I also said it's un-American to punish people for the actions of others.

You referred to a prison population problem and dismissed 25% being incarcerated for drug crimes as not being a big part of it. What's this prison population problem you referred to previously that you seem to now be claiming no such mention of?

Why would it infuriate me? You're really reaching in your attempt to mischaracterize my indifference to drug crimes as something unfortunate. None of those things change whether or not something is illegal and whether or not someone convicted is a criminal. This is a theme here...I see drug crimes the same as non-drug crimes. You think drug crimes shouldn't be seen/treated like non-drug crimes.

Because of this failing on your part, you think I have something against drug criminals when I simply don't offer them any preferences. You want them to have special preferences so you see my indifference as antagonism. This is why you keep coming up with arguments that have nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Also keeping people inside longer isn't that realistic since that wouldn't influence the criminal laws anymore than they already do. I've never referenced a prison population problem so I don't know if you're thinking about someone else. In fact, I've never argued that we have a prison population problem in any thread except as a reason to enforce the death penalty more broadly.

You'd better cite because I'm 99% sure you misunderstood whatever I wrote.

And how is anyone punishing people for the actions of others, let alone in an un-American fashion? These are contractual relationships. Company X gets paid some amount for managing the prison population. That payment has a variety of conditions included in it. One of those conditions could be a reduction (or fee snatch back) of the yearly payment based on how many previously incarcerated members are convicted of another crime within a predetermined amount of years after release. Straightforward, mutually negotiated, contractual relationship. No one's getting punished.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

That's the most disturbing thing I've read on here in a while

Ha.

Hey it was the 60s man. Time of free love.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

In fact, I've never argued that we have a prison population problem in any thread except as a reason to enforce the death penalty more broadly.

You'd better cite because I'm 99% sure you misunderstood whatever I wrote.

And how is anyone punishing people for the actions of others, let alone in an un-American fashion? These are contractual relationships. Company X gets paid some amount for managing the prison population. That payment has a variety of conditions included in it. One of those conditions could be a reduction (or fee snatch back) of the yearly payment based on how many previously incarcerated members are convicted of another crime within a predetermined amount of years after release. Straightforward, mutually negotiated, contractual relationship. No one's getting punished.

Here you go. All of one page prior.

Drug related crimes make up less than 25% of inmates, less depending on which specific state and if it's a federal vs. state prison (higher percentage in federal). While not an insignificant amount of people, they're really not a big part of our prison population problem.

How is fining institutions when a former inmate commits a crime punishment for the actions of others??? Maybe the concept is more clear if we change it to punishing parents for their minor child's misdeeds? If you're for fining prisons then why wouldn't we start with parents so the message gets sent early? Sound like an ounce of prevention to me.

Are you able to state why anyone/society should be concerned with recidivism any more than first offenses? I mean, it's confusing what the point is when you don't care about overall prison population or the lifelong ramifications of a criminal record on individual people.

 

[Rational Poster]

I don't think the idea in the OP is that much of a stretch...you must though. Why is that?

I would agree that there are plenty of other conspiracies to get up in arms about. We are not getting up in arms, we are here to speculate if something like that could happen and if there is anything in place to prevent it....

Wouldn't it be a better use of time discussing the potential alien threat?

Or how about some of the existing issues with our prison system?

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

Wouldn't it be a better use of time discussing the potential alien threat?

Or how about some of the existing issues with our prison system?

So you just completely dodged my question....

Part of the thread is about the privatization of our prisons...that's a legit issue in the US....you chose not to address that either if talking about REAL issues is truly your concern...Seems more and more like you're complaining just for shits and giggles. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[cincymma79]

Or 75% of millions people at twenty grand is 3x the money you're getting for your part. In fact, a 50% reduction in my 75% still out gains your entire 25%. Shit, I need lower reductions in my 75% all the way around to beat your group. 5 million people fewer is 20% of your population but less than 7% of mine. I'd bet that it's easier for me to cut my prison population by 7% than for you to cut yours by 20%.

I guess this is my way of saying I don't know what you're driving at. Drug offenders are often repeat offenders and the issue is one of recidivism.

Can't commit the crime again if it isn't a crime. Worked in Portugal

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

I don't equate the crimes. I equate breaking the law with breaking the law. I see breaking one law the same as breaking another law. I don't say "Johnny broke the law but since it's Law X and not Law Y, it's not really breaking the law..." I think that' silly. You might penalize the laws differently, certainly murder deserves a different sentence than dealing but the actor is still a criminal and deserves jail time for being one.

You're still not making any sense in your paragraphs about fines. I never said anything about reducing the number of prisoners being my goal. You've distracted yourself with the mj talk and missed the point. The point is "repeat offenders". Not "first time felons" and not avoiding being labelled a convict.

Penalizing prisons for repeat offenders provides an incentive for the prisons to try strategies to keep their inmates from returning to a life of crime. What form that would take is unknown. The point of putting out a financial incentive is to encourage them to experiment. Sooner or later, a viable solution might present itself.

You seem very concerned about what is legal or illegal and not concerned about what is right and wrong....they are not the same thing.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Can't commit the crime again if it isn't a crime. Worked in Portugal

He seems to think people need punished because it's a crime and it's a crime because people need punished for it.

 

[cincymma79]

He seems to think people need punished because it's a crime and it's a crime because people need punished for it.

That's true though, change the law

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

That's true though, change the law

That's actually the fallacy of begging the question.

I'm no legal historian, but I'm under the impression that actions running afoul of antiquated legislation are sometimes ignored on a regular basis. Something tells me there wasn't much rigorous pursuit of sodomizers prior to SCOTUS declaring those laws un-Constitutional. Probably kept on the books to stick it to certain people when convenient.

 

[deadshot138]

It would be interesting if private prisons got some sort of pay based on the rate of recidivism of their inmates after they are released.

That would be idiotic. People reoffend because they want to, not because the prison makes them. Socialization begins at birth and when you're born into a criminal environment or at the very least a neglectful environment, you're predisposed to that type of behavior. Mental illness also plays a huge factor. Its not illegal to be crazy in America but if you commit crimes while crazy, you get lumped into the prison population rather than getting treatment. But thats a whole different discussion.

 

[deadshot138]

I've seen people get released and come back 8 hours later on a new crime. Its a community problem, not a prison problem.

 

[vertical_leap]

That would be idiotic. People reoffend because they want to, not because the prison makes them. Socialization begins at birth and when you're born into a criminal environment or at the very least a neglectful environment, you're predisposed to that type of behavior. Mental illness also plays a huge factor. Its not illegal to be crazy in America but if you commit crimes while crazy, you get lumped into the prison population rather than getting treatment. But thats a whole different discussion.

Some people will reoffend no matter what. But it is pretty clear from all the evidence that prisons can play a great role in reducing recidivism.