Is this something that people against private prisons believe...that they just release all the prisoners when they close the prison?
There are a few different strains of thought when it comes to opposition to private prisons, but I believe the common denominator is that they create a perverse incentive. They turn prisons into businesses—the more prisoners, the better.
So while there are definitely people who want these prisoners freed immediately, and even people who want prisons abolished altogether, getting the profit motive out of prisons would be a significant win regardless.
The same criticism can be applied towards forced prison labour, and yet, it is explicitly permitted by the thirteenth amendment. (And is commonly used in state prisons.)
Just because a profit incentive falls in the hands of the state's coffers, as opposed to some corporation, does not mean the incentive is not perverse.
If you ask me, we need substantially more drug enforcement. There are severe inequalities in how we police for drugs that often result in only the poor and marginalized locked up. We need to refocus our drug war on the rich and powerful and put them in jail to, to make things more equal.
Drug dealer Y kills someone to protect territory - This is violent.
If X was willing to buy drugs from anyone, and/or if X would prefer to buy from a legal seller but none is available, Y is not the cause of the violence.
Also, you can get locked up for smoking weed that you grew yourself and had no intention of selling. What of that?
> if X would prefer to buy from a legal seller but none is available
If I want to buy a nuke, but one is not available from a legal seller, does that mean I am not responsible for paying an unscrupulous seller to furnish that for me?
> Also, you can get locked up for smoking weed that you grew yourself and had no intention of selling. What of that?
Where did you get the weed plant? Last time I checked, weed doesn't magically sprout in your hydroponic set up (and I'd know).
Oops, was that not the answer you were trying to bait?
An excellent argument for decriminalizing them.
> All drug offenses are violent. Illegal...
First you say "all", then "illegal". Which is it?
> An excellent argument for decriminalizing them.
Indeed, but that doesn't automatically exculpate those who have -- during prohibition -- directly caused violence by their money. In my opinion, they should all be in jail for murder. For life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Massacre
They certainly caused violence with their money much more directly than modern drug users.
I watched a really great lecture online that was about how everything that rich countries criminalize (primarily prostitution and drugs) ends up becoming powerful industries in poorer countries because the demand from rich countries persists and creates a price floor higher than normal economically productive work in those poor countries. If rich people want something and it's banned in their country, it becomes an extremely profitable endeavor in poorer nations to meet this demand. Because profit margins are greater than normal economic activity, this enables criminal to gain political power within those countries. The speaker had a name for this idea which I can't remember, something like "hedonic exportation" - if anyone knows what I'm talking about I've been looking for this lecture for a few years.
The rising violence rate due to the marijuana trade in California (and other states) does not agree with your made up reasoning. Although, in principle, I agree that your reasoning ought to make sense. Unfortunately, my principles and empiricism are often at odds, so it's best to side with the latter.
It actually does, because federal prohibition has not been lifted (even though there is non-assured enforcement forebearance).
The fact that anyone in a significant ownership, leadership, or management position in any business in the industry is technically guilty of a federal felony with a 20-year minimum sentence (and, just by being sufficiently successful, that can bumped up to a life-without-parole minimum) [0] has a fairly substantial impact on the willingness of otherwise legitimate businesses and businesspeople to participate in the industry and thus on what kind of business people do participate, even when the feds aren't actually prosecuting at the moment.
[0] the “drug kingpin” (formally, Continuing Criminal Enterprise) statute and it's later-added “super kingpin” provision.
Right, except for the critical fact that there are no legal marijuana businesses, that is certainly an important effect of the continued federal prohibition.
Not only would you want more prisoners, but you will also be interested in keeping them as long as possible (i.e. no parole) and pushing recidivism incidents to its maximum.
But we also have other side of the equation - politicians willing to expand definition of "crime" to placate people's fears and emotions combined with prosecutors willing to throw the book to make and example and build a career on it, all while not appropriately funding the prisons.
California's real problem is MASSIVE prison population, where you have to BECOME a RACIST to survive the prison gangs. Prison overcrowd is a feature of CA prison system.
I wish they ordered their priorities right and built enough prisons to house the population safely.
This is one single step in a series of steps to get anywhere positive. Knowing their Governor and his political expedient past, I am skeptical.
One alternative would be to reduce sentences for those crimes, but good luck getting the public to vote for any politician who would propose such a thing.
See https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html for some interesting stats on US prisons.
There's no reason to have over half a percentage of point of the entire population in prison. Almost no other country in the world does this.
Capping incarceration rates not only prevents prison overcrowding, but is a forcing function for policy changes that actually lower crime, as well as alternative sentencing options for non-violent crime (which almost always have better outcomes.)
And well established as a thing that happens at all times in California, but the real major culprit of that type is the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, not the private prison industry.
> California's real problem is MASSIVE prison population
It's been declining for nearly a decade, and despite California being the largest-population state, it's got a smaller prison population than Texas. But, yes, the prison population is too high.
> Prison overcrowd is a feature of CA prison system.
This is true, though that has also been reduced as prison population has.
> I wish they ordered their priorities right and built enough prisons to house the population safely.
Better would be to reduce the prison population to the level that can be safely housed in the existing facilities. California's problem is too many prisoners, not too few prisons.
> instead of freeing the detainees, Ice moved many of them to prisons in Colorado and Hawaii
Of course, no one could have rationally believed that these people -- considered to be lawbreakers -- would just get FREED automatically. That would be an idiotic assumption. And yet, the article is worded as if there actually were people who believed it.
So, yes, some people believe private-prisons are a useful tool to deal with over-crowding in state facilities and that the likely alternative is further reduced-sentence releases.
No. The goal of wiping out the private prisons is simply that profit motive in the justice system is always an inherent conflict of interest.
The fact that ICE is getting smashed is just a side benefit.
Adelanto is almost 2,000 people and is the second biggest detention center for ICE. Who knows, ICE may indeed free these prisoners rather than spend the money to transport them to facilities that can't house them anyway. Wouldn't that be a nice benefit?