I find it amazing that there is a guarantee of 90% occupancy or higher for these prisons, and if it falls below the taxpayers foot the bill. Of course, I find it amazing that "private prisons" are a thing at all.
How about creating a system where we help people who have been to prison to avoid going there again - say training them for good jobs and treating them like human beings when in jail so they treat others the same way when they get out?
I suggested that he learn to write code then hang out his shingle as a self-employed consultant.
It turned out that he was already quite a good computer programmer as he was taught how while in prison. But even so he refused to consider self-employment because he was so down on himself.
While there are many reasons to pursue self-employment, among them is that one cannot find paying work any other way.
The reason prisons are commonly called "Penitentiaries" or "Correctional Institutes" is that they are not intended for punishment but to set their inmates onto a righteous path.
At least that was the stated intention at one time.
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...
It would be interesting to see the unionization rates in the for profit prisons. I am sure the FPP would love to lower their staffing costs and influence while having a more opaque regime overseas.
Because cutting off family support for these prisoners would make a bad situation worse?
And the wealthy don't get enough preferential treatment in the criminal justice system now?
The current system does a great job draining additional money from poor inmates and their families. Just look at the price of phone calls, one of the most basic means to keep people connected.
The wealthy are already less likely to be investigated (living in a non-poor neighborhood), less likely to be charged with a crime (better lawyers), and less likely to be convicted (ditto).
Oh, I don't like this in my house, let me just toss it into the neighbour's place since I am powerful and the neighbour can't complain...
Suppose you have a private prison that is designed to reasonably hold up to 450 prisoners, and could be pushed up to 500. There is no real difference between the following two contracts:
1. The state pays $10.8m/year, plus $24k/year for each prisoner over 450.
2. The state pays $24k/year per prisoner, with a minimum payment based on 90% occupancy.
In both cases the state pays $10.8m/year if it puts 0-450 prisoners in the prison, and in both cases it pays ($10.8m + $24k (N-450))/year if it puts N prisoners, where N > 450, in the prison.
Even Ayn Rand said that government should only be in the military and judicial business, how did we end up to the right of her?
You didn't overall. The idea of left and right politics is a false dichotomy and false mechanistic analogy, but I get what you are saying.
I take issue with even calling these prison co's "private". Corporatist is more accurate. To be truly private there would also not be monopolies on lawmaking... police and judges should all be privatized. Government should be abolished and politician should no longer be a job option.
Those companies who lobbied along with politicians for unjust laws, like punishment for putting any substance in my body so long as I harm none, all ought to be branded criminal and punished themselves. This is the position[0] of consistent, anarchist libertarianism, and those such as myself who hold these positions are not fans of Ayn Rand BTW[1].
[0] http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/b...
Were we to abolish gov't and it's geographic monopolies on law and policing, then truly private prisons would both be way less common and nothing at all like what's talked about in the article.
Some of the statistics on crime are outdated but Benson's The Enterprise of Law is a great book to look at understanding the problem here.
Conditions were so terrible before the move for privatization in federal prisons (sometime in the 70's). With a move back toward that system (which would never happen because more politicians' and bureaucrats' pockets are being lined) you might not have quotas and the push for continued prohibition from this one little angle, but gov't is not a business[0], so the comparison to private hospitals or electric companies is faulty.
I was on an involuntary ten day hold in Reno, Nevada because I told a shrink I planned to go camping in the desert. Not being from Reno myself, I was unaware that "camping in the desert" is a local euphemism for "committing suicide". It was of no use to point out that I had gone camping in the desert just the night before, nor that I have the Boy Scout Wilderness Survival Merit Badge.
I was handcuffed then taken by a deputy to a hospital emergency room, where I refused to wear a hospital gown because "As a mental hospital patient, I have the right to wear my own clothes".
In reality I don't particularly care, I only say that to determine whether the staff knows that the laws are.
Some very, very angry man shouted "YOU'RE ON A HOLD! YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!"
When I bluntly pointed out that the United States Supreme Court disagreed, they injected me with a massive dose of Haldol. That's widely considered one of the most-powerful antipsychotics. While I was not in any way symptomatic all the time, it is also powerfully sedating.
I don't know why but for some reason Haldol is largely ineffective on me. That really freaked them all out when I continued going on about my right to wear my own clothes, so they injected me again with a far higher dose.