USA - The problem with private prisons

[Pondlife]

My premise is that privatised prisons are a way of extracting money from taxpayers, aided by the war on drugs and media-fueled hysteria. This is mainly a US problem, but its effects are worldwide because of the global influence that the US has.

With privatised prisons, there is a financial incentive to have as many prisoners as possible because the inmates are what brings in the cash. The size of the prison population is largely controlled by the government through the laws they enact and the enforcement measures they finance. So it shouldn't be a surprise that there is a potential for corruption here.

I could go on, but this story by Catherine Austin Fitts says it much better than I ever could. If you have the time I'd suggest that you read it all, but if not at least read chapters 8 and 9: http://www.dunwalke.com/contents.htm

Then take a look at this piece in The Independent (a British broadsheet newspaper): http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2864191.ece

The Independent article could be better. In particular it doesn't cite sources for its figures, and it relies too much on anecdote and stereotype. However, I believe that the overall picture is correct and it is not surprising when the corruption outlined in Fitts' story is understood.

In a word: it stinks. I think that all the people who say "the war on drugs cannot continue because it's not logical" are deluding themselves. The laws do not have to be logical or right when the lawmakers benefit from them being illogical and wrong.

[Bikelbees]

Its true that private operators of prisons and security guards seem closer to mercenaries than ordinary businesses, and of course they are often in practice less accountable than the public sector. Perhaps there is something more objectionable about being beaten by a private security guard than a police-officer. In the UK the court security officers responsible for persons on remand and prisoner movement are from private companies.

The Independent article is about prisons per se, and does not distinguish between the public and private sectors. Any type of prison is in my view a cruel punishment and an anathema to rehabilitation.

This discussion could focus on the political aspects of incarceration and alternatives.

[beentheredonethatagain]

the problem is over crowding of prisons here in the U.S. yes the war on drugs has filled up the beds, the only thing that is doing is allowing the violent and habitual offenders out early. The states always have some reason to call for a shift in the release dates of inmates. I don't think private prisons are the blame for the inmate population, the state and federal pens are full. Here in california the county jail system is having big problems with too many and not enough space, because the state is slow on "pulling chain" (picking up the prison sentenced convicts ) because state hasn't room for the new population it backs up like sewage in the jails system. drugs are costing taxpayers way the hell too much cash. I thought of this scenario, if one were to bring in a kilo of coke to the country and divide it and cut it and package it so that it were to be in several thousand peoples pockets and they all were arrested, the kilo of coke would cost mega millions of dollars to the government. I hope I didnt loose any body on that hypothetical situation. In theory that would be possible and it is happening but not on that scale. just something to ponder

[Nagognog2]

How about some ideas regards alternatives to the Dickensian structure in place as of this writing? How can we rehabilitate those in need of such? And who decides if one needs such?

Surely someone who rapes and kills (fill in sex here) needs some serious help. But someone who enjoys a bit of cannabis? Or is torturing people just another way of saying "you're different than I?" We would have to take serious account of what constitutes unacceptable behavior. And this would cut a wide swath through society - leaving embarrassed pre-thinkers in it's wake.

We would have to rock the proverbial boat.

[beentheredonethatagain]

the rehabilitation of law breakers is only geared toward the juvenile delinquent in the court system. the view as a whole on the rehab of men and women in the adult system is non existent, the prison system is mainly a tool for punishment and not so much as the " get the help you need" programs. Right or Wrong its just too much money to hire councillors and teachers in prisons for the benefit of trying to change the minds of career criminals.

[Nagognog2]

Allow me to simplify/clarify: The problem(s) are glaringly obvious. What are the solutions that can possibly be utilized. Operative word: Possibly.

[old hippie 56]

We all know the solution to overcrowding prisons, but in reality, legalization is a long uphill battle. Too many hard headed politicians are filling up the halls of congress and King Bush is dead set against any form of legalization(guess the pharms companies lobby is paying off).

[Nagognog2]

Okay. There is a factor in the problem: The pharma lobby. How do WE solve that one? It's already happening here and there (hint). Come on - how do we knock 'em on their ass (peacefully)?

[old hippie 56]

If we only prove that the majority of the meds that they are pushing are worthless and dangerous. Look what happen to Vioxx, they pay out millions in lawsuits, but the damn drug is still on the market(with a blackbox label).

[beentheredonethatagain]

Nagognog2 are you possible refering to socialized health care?

[Heretic.Ape.]

^ That's not a solution. You would have to knock out pharma before hoping to implement socialized health because no politician who is getting the proverbial blow job from pharma lobbyists is going to vote for something bad for his (true) constituents.
I have doubts about lawsuits. Pharma industry has literally gotten away with murder and all they need to do is put a new warning label or if necessary shift campaign focus to a different pill to proclaim as the new wonder drug to take the place of the discredited one.
Can we get another hint Nag?

[Broshious]

I'm curious as to why there would be a pharmaceutical lobby against legalized drugs. If they could be producing and selling MDMA don't you think that that might make them a small amount of $$ ? And then they could sell cures for all the problems from long-term drug use. Win-Win.

[old hippie 56]

To answer your question, if you could legally grow your own medicinal plants and process your own medicines, would you pay your hard earned dollars to the local drugstore? Swim wouldn't.

[Broshious]

Originally Posted by old hippie 56

To answer your question, if you could legally grow your own medicinal plants and process your own medicines, would you pay your hard earned dollars to the local drugstore? Swim wouldn't.

The only plant I can think of is marijuana. Can't you legally grow your own tobacco, or your own fruits and vegetables, etc.?

[old hippie 56]

The plant world is full of medicinal plants, swim imagines that a high percentage of todays medicines is derived from plants.

[dr ACE]

Originally Posted by pondlife

In a word: it stinks. I think that all the people who say "the war on drugs cannot continue because it's not logical" are deluding themselves. The laws do not have to be logical or right when the lawmakers benefit from them being illogical and wrong.

things do change slowly when attitudes sway over time,with more accurate research finally being achieved even though its slow because the laws restricted research on illegal thinks dumb that is'init.swim things prisons private or not are always going to be a problem when their overflowing costing more money cause their constantly filling up with cannabis users/producers or RC users/producers.
prisons should obviously be for criminally insane or dangerous violent offenders people who cause serious problems and cost allot for society to deal with

[Broshious]

Originally Posted by old hippie 56

The plant world is full of medicinal plants, swim imagines that a high percentage of todays medicines is derived from plants.

Yeah that was my bad. However, if the pharm companies were really the cause of drugs being illegal all they'd have to do is make them prescription only. You could get cocaine from them, but growing coca leaves would still be illegal. Just like it is with opiates now right?

[Bikelbees]

I don't accept the premise that the reason drugs remain illegal is the direct commercial interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Perhaps the theme emerging from this thread is that capitalist interests are corrupting and not to be trusted, whether they be in private security firms or protecting their market sector in drugs. I guess the question is can anything be done short of total revolution that will change things? Can the private sector be controlled through governmental regs and international laws and treaties to perform their duties satisfactorily? Perhaps consumer power and public opinion will effect change, or are these interests so entrenched that its about, and only about who holds power?

[beentheredonethatagain]

You guys talk about the drug laws as if they arent being loosened. I have in laws that in the 1970's served time in state penitentiary for possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, at the time they were barley 18 and with no prior record to speak of. And when I say prison , I'm talking behind " the walls" not at some daycamp type facility.
Today they would have gotten probation , and it could have been their second of third offense and they still wouldn't have been locked up. So things are changing finally, for the state that I live in now has marijuana dispensaries for those who purchase the voucher. I thought I would never see that in my life time.

[Broshious]

Originally Posted by Bikelbees

I don't accept the premise that the reason drugs remain illegal is the direct commercial interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Perhaps the theme emerging from this thread is that capitalist interests are corrupting and not to be trusted, whether they be in private security firms or protecting their market sector in drugs. I guess the question is can anything be done short of total revolution that will change things? Can the private sector be controlled through governmental regs and international laws and treaties to perform their duties satisfactorily? Perhaps consumer power and public opinion will effect change, or are these interests so entrenched that its about, and only about who holds power?

It's not capitalist interests that aren't to be trusted it's the government that is the problem. If people didn't put up with this shit then the government wouldn't be able to show favortism and receive bribes.

[Pondlife]

There are many problems, but as I see it the big two are:

There needs to be limitations on areas where the government's decisions are able to make money for private business, because this facilitates corruption and also ends up with sub-optimal decision making. One example is the private prisons industry mentioned in the original posting; another is the War on Terror (Halliburton and Dick Cheney among others). One of the things that worries me here is the UK government's flirtation with PFI and public-private partnerships.

There also needs to be tight control over party funding and donations. I think most people realise that "lobbying" and "donations" are just ways to buy political influence with money, and I think they have no place in a healthy democracy.

Is there any way to stop this? I don't know, but I doubt that it will be easy: pigs don't normally lift their noses from the trough unless they are forced. However, I am not keen on revolution either - too unpredictable and dangerous for my liking. As Hilaire Belloc said "And always keep a-hold of nurse/for fear of finding something worse".

[Broshious]

Originally Posted by pondlife

There also needs to be tight control over party funding and donations. I think most people realise that "lobbying" and "donations" are just ways to buy political influence with money, and I think they have no place in a healthy democracy.

I feel that the campaign finance laws already infringe too much on free speech. If a guy wants to give a billion dollars to a candidate he should be free to do so. You're certainly free to not vote for a politician that has been "bought".

Reputation Comments on this post:

right on

[old hippie 56]

Now days, they don't go by polls much anymore, they go by the size of the "warchest". Usually who got the most money wins the election.

[El Calico Loco]

I think the War on Some (Unfashionable) Drugs is primarily moral and cultural.

The drugs laws are based, like most laws today, on utilitarian moral arguments. Certain drugs should be illegal, the argument goes, because the use of these drugs causes terrible consequences for society - harm to children via drug addiction, abuse, or neglect; addicts are unproductive and/or criminal; drug manufacturers will pray on the poor and mentally ill; intoxicated drivers will kill people; et cetera.

There are two ways to answer this. One can argue that most of the utilitarian arguments against drugs are flawed, and that the War on Drugs causes far more disutility than drugs themselves do. This is the most common argument. It is correct, but it gives ground to the Prohibitionists by agreeing that we should have a War on Drugs or not based on utilitarian grounds.

Another way to answer is to reject the argument from consequences entirely and argue from some other ethical standard - deontology, natural rights theory (much of which is contained in the American Constitution), or - my favorite - the ethic of reciprocity (ie "love others as yourself").

The latter might be a way to influence Christians. Though the "official" arguments for the WoD are based on utilitarianism, Christian puritanism is behind much of the cultural feelings against drugs, I think. Ask them whether Jesus would lock an addict up in a cage as punishment or try to help the addict kick his habit.


ECL

Reputation Comments on this post:

Preach on brotha

[Broshious]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

I think the War on Some (Unfashionable) Drugs is primarily moral and cultural.

The drugs laws are based, like most laws today, on utilitarian moral arguments. Certain drugs should be illegal, the argument goes, because the use of these drugs causes terrible consequences for society - harm to children via drug addiction, abuse, or neglect; addicts are unproductive and/or criminal; drug manufacturers will pray on the poor and mentally ill; intoxicated drivers will kill people; et cetera.

There are two ways to answer this. One can argue that most of the utilitarian arguments against drugs are flawed, and that the War on Drugs causes far more disutility than drugs themselves do. This is the most common argument. It is correct, but it gives ground to the Prohibitionists by agreeing that we should have a War on Drugs or not based on utilitarian grounds.

Another way to answer is to reject the argument from consequences entirely and argue from some other ethical standard - deontology, natural rights theory (much of which is contained in the American Constitution), or - my favorite - the ethic of reciprocity (ie "love others as yourself").

The latter might be a way to influence Christians. Though the "official" arguments for the WoD are based on utilitarianism, Christian puritanism is behind much of the cultural feelings against drugs, I think. Ask them whether Jesus would lock an addict up in a cage as punishment or try to help the addict kick his habit.


ECL

Damn straight. You can't argue that drugs are safe or that drug laws are ineffective because that's exactly what they want you to do. The other side can always produce studies and such that say the opposite, and at the same time you're telling them to keep trying to protect us from ourselves, you just want them to do a better job at it.

Unfortunately, until our society changes in some very fundamental ways, such as people taking personal responsibility for their actions, I don't see any major changes taking place. Sure Marijuana might become legalized, but only until some more paid researchers find out it makes your children grow a third nipple.

Ultimately the best argument we have is that any laws against any victimless crime are for a lack of a better word 'evil'.