It’s hard to put into words how destructive your line of reasoning is, and the confidence with which you express it frightens me that others might even share it with you.
I would argue that the private prison system is in fact designed to do exactly this, namely to put people in prison and keep them there for profit.
You could argue that my claim that their intent is nefarious is speculation and I’ll grant you that, because I am unfamiliar with any private prison owners or the people who came up with the idea, but by that token you’d have to grant your opinion about the intent behind private prisons is also purely speculative, and I would add more damaging than my speculation.
> The charges outlined in the information[23] described actions between 2000 and 2007 by both judges to assist in the construction and population of private juvenile facilities operated by the two Pennsylvania Child Care companies, acting in an official capacity in favor of the private facilities over the facility operated by Luzerne County.
Your attempt at logic somehow leads you to tell the victims over a 7 year period ~“look, you won, now stop bringing attention to this issue, the system is designed to do something else, who cares that it is capable of being exploited in this manner”.
If everyone had your perspective those prisons would still be doing this, but thankfully in that 7 year period of “the system working as designed” activists speculated that something nefarious was happening and brought attention to how it actually works.
> It shows the opposite.
This is incredibly naive. When has one entity getting caught ever been a legitimate excuse for everyone else similarly situated to be free from scrutiny?
What is “the opposite” in this context anyway? Do you believe private prisons exist to empty themselves and “give cash to kids”? How does a private prison sustain itself with a population of 0?
With imprecise communication there is always the danger of misunderstanding, and that can lead to devastating consequences.
You say I misunderstood your comment, that’s fair, but I have read and reread it many times and am unable to interpret it elsewise.
Please elaborate.
It will be best for both of us.
I will know what you truly meant, and perhaps feel better about your position, and you will be assured that your true intent is clear and fully received by your audience.
Things I didn't say:
- any value judgment about private prisons - no statement about shutting up or stop bringing up the crimes - didn't justify or attempt to justify excluding oversight of government - anything about the business model of private prisons
I think your analogy is flawed.
For it to apply there would have to have been an institution that can only exist in the presence of mass murder similarly as private prisons only exist in the presence of incarceration.
A better analogy would be Civil Asset Forfeiture. A perfectly legal act by police, but also clearly heinous. The fact that these "forfeitures" are written into the police budgets means "the system" is designed to require it, but still stops short of "advancing" the infractions where that procedure is then abused.
For instance, if I get pulled over for a broken tail light, and happen to have $10k in cash on me and the police seize the money, it would be ridiculous to then say that "tail light awareness is designed to advance civil asset forfeiture".
> Things I didn't say:
> - any value judgment about private prisons
I can accept that, but you were objecting to a example provided in a comment that was critical of private prisons. It suggests you are in support of them.
> - no statement about shutting up or stop bringing up the crimes
> - didn't justify or attempt to justify excluding oversight of government
I certainly read your comment's dismissive "It shows the opposite." to be a pithy way of trying to stop the conversation about private prisons and specifically kids for cash.
It also suggests that you think my bringing it up is superfluous anyway, and everything is as it should be, so why then would there be any need for oversight? Conversely, if you support oversight then you must admit there is a flaw in the system capable of being exploited.
If I write a strongly typed function (the system) then it would be unnecessary for me to write another function that checks the types of the inputs before running the previous function (oversight) because the types are already a part of "the system".
> - anything about the business model of private prisons
Okay, but you did say: "It doesn't reinforce the idea that the system is designed to ship people into private prisons. It shows the opposite." By these bullet points you seem to be implying that private prisons are somehow "other than" in regards to "the system". What is your definition of the system?
Because kids for cash was organised by judges and prison owners who I would say are precisely "the system".
This is the point I was making about communication. The exact words you use is only a piece of what you communicate.
And hey, if you feel I put words into your mouth then this is an opportunity for you to set me straight on how you do in fact feel about these things.
What is you value judgement on private prisons?
What is your opinion on the business model of private prisons?
Do you think that exploitation like "kids for cash" implies flaws in "the system"?