Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This happened in Connecticut, where private prisons hold less than 5% of the prison population (and where there were no private prisons at all as recently as 2000). The Freddie Grey incident happened in Maryland, where there are no private prisons.[1] Michael Brown was killed in Missouri, which has no private prisons. The Eric Garner incident happened in New York, where private prisons are illegal. The Homan Square detention center happened in Illinois, where private prisons are illegal. The recent shooting of a disabled man happened in North Carolina, which has almost completely phased out its private prisons.

A lot of the measures that fill the prisons today (mandatory minimums, three strikes, aggressive prosecution, no parole), started back before the private prison industry even existed. So why on earth should I believe that "for-profit prison lobbyists" have anything to do with these issues? It's a totally nonsense explanation.

I don't know why there is this need to believe that ordinary voters aren't the ones ultimately culpable for the state of the justice system in the U.S. It's soccer moms and dads, shop owners, etc., that have been the backbone of "tough on crime" and "just say no" for decades.

[1] Getting rid of for-profit prisons was part of former Maryland governor O'Malley's presidential platform.

I'm sorry, in my concision I conflated the Prison Industrial Complex (this includes for-profit prisons, but also the building of the prisons themselves, the bars, the plumbing, the electrical, the cameras, the servers, the alarms, the manufacturing of the clothing, prison-safe toiletries, guard equipment, guard uniforms, ID badges, magnetometers, the transportation of food, inmates, mail, general supplies... I'm sure you know this, but I guess it can be easy to overlook when I simply say "for-profit prison lobbyists" because you're right, they aren't the sole problem) with "for-profit prison lobbyists."

Of course, since our representatives (congressman, state attorneys and their offices [while some positions are appointed, they're appointed by elected officials], judges, etc.) are the people making the decisions and we vote on them, the ordinary voters are the ones ultimately culpable. Though, I believe the issues we're discussing need faster solutions than "make America less racist." If the PIC were to fall or we, via policy, were to deincentivize targeting the black population with disproportionate enforcement policies and punishment within police departments, do you really think the public would force the policies back into place?

> I don't know why there is this need to believe that ordinary voters aren't the ones ultimately culpable for the state of the justice system in the U.S.

I wonder the same thing. It seems to me to be a major obstacle, perhaps the major obstacle, to improvement. We refuse to take responsibility for the natural consequences of the policies we support and the incentives we give politicians.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com