The Economics of the American Prison System(smartasset.com)
smartasset.com
The Economics of the American Prison System
http://www.smartasset.com/blog/news/the-economics-of-the-american-prison-system/
86 comments
>1) Are privately run prisons better for the good of society than publicly run prisons? What does the research say? How biased is the research? etc.
IMO, Absolutely not.
>2) More importantly, regardless of whether they are private or public prisons, how do we get less people to be living in them? What are our other options?
Answer jury summonses. Learn about jury nullification. Pay attention to local elections.
> I then went and tried to find other organizations looking to make sweeping changes. I was not successful.
The Innocence Project of Texas http://www.ipoftexas.org/
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition http://www.leap.cc/
IMO, Absolutely not.
>2) More importantly, regardless of whether they are private or public prisons, how do we get less people to be living in them? What are our other options?
Answer jury summonses. Learn about jury nullification. Pay attention to local elections.
> I then went and tried to find other organizations looking to make sweeping changes. I was not successful.
The Innocence Project of Texas http://www.ipoftexas.org/
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition http://www.leap.cc/
Hey, thanks for your comment about LEAP. I had heard of them in the past, but didn't consider them. That may be where I make a donation, but the issue again is that the organization is about prohibition. In an ideal world, the organization would be fighting for human rights and addressing prohibition as the lowest hanging, and first fruit to take off the tree.
The Innocence Project is amazing, but does not address the widespread solution we need. A noble organization, ABSOLUTELY!
As for your first comment:
>1) Are privately run prisons better for the good of society than publicly run prisons? What does the research say? How biased is the research? etc. IMO, Absolutely not.
This is the general opinion of HN, but is it the truth? I'm sure someone has addressed this opinion with honest analysis, but I don't know where it exists. Stating that "they are making a profit" is not good enough because there is more to the question than that.
Thanks again for pointing to LEAP. That is definitely a better marketed organization than NORML.
The Innocence Project is amazing, but does not address the widespread solution we need. A noble organization, ABSOLUTELY!
As for your first comment:
>1) Are privately run prisons better for the good of society than publicly run prisons? What does the research say? How biased is the research? etc. IMO, Absolutely not.
This is the general opinion of HN, but is it the truth? I'm sure someone has addressed this opinion with honest analysis, but I don't know where it exists. Stating that "they are making a profit" is not good enough because there is more to the question than that.
Thanks again for pointing to LEAP. That is definitely a better marketed organization than NORML.
I know you hate the "they are making a profit" argument, but please consider the economic forces at play. This is a cohort that has almost no voice with which to protest their treatment, so every effort is likely to be made to drive down costs. Private prison oversight is fraught with problems. It's also not great for staff. It's a bad place to have "market forces" Take some prison manager who needs to fill beds to get his income up, what can he do? Increase reporting of crime inside the prison (assaults, contraband, etc) or find some county/state with extra inmates. What if they don't have any? Get them to "find some" It happens. These folks cover some of it at least for Texas. http://www.texasprisonbidness.org/
Jury Nullification seems to get bandied about a lot on tech sites. Yet in practice it is not as easy as one suspects, nor does it happen with any real frequency. It is common that defense attorneys are not allowed to instruct a jury to seek nullification, juries are regularly advised to apply the law in a case, and then there are courts which will screen out prospective jurors if they voice the opinion they don't agree with the law.
Then to top it off, you have to get all members of the jury to agree to it. With that you run up against morals and predispositions of the various jurors. It would have to be a pretty damn extreme law, one unfavorable with the public as a whole, to get caught up by a nullification and you can be the authorities would do their best to stack the deck
Then to top it off, you have to get all members of the jury to agree to it. With that you run up against morals and predispositions of the various jurors. It would have to be a pretty damn extreme law, one unfavorable with the public as a whole, to get caught up by a nullification and you can be the authorities would do their best to stack the deck
Why do you have to get the rest of the jury to agree with it? Isn't it sufficient to have eleven people wanting to convict based off of law, and one person voting no (and sticking to it) because of disagreeing with the law?
And what benefit do we get from locking up any drug user? Legal or not? Are we helping the user or society like this?
Hippies? Really? The entire Drug War is a failure and should be offensive to anybody who treasures civil liberties. If you passively accept the status quo then YOU are the problem, because this madness only continues because of sanctimonious people like YOU.
Hippies? Really? The entire Drug War is a failure and should be offensive to anybody who treasures civil liberties. If you passively accept the status quo then YOU are the problem, because this madness only continues because of sanctimonious people like YOU.
The drug war is offensive and I am clearly stating that I no longer want to passively accept the status quo. I am also stating that NORML's brand is ineffective and I am looking for a brand I can donate to and possibly volunteer with without a negative impact to my career.
Until NORML changes their entire brand, their effectiveness will be limited. They do rally hippies which is a positive, but they won't get serious business people who cannot afford reputation risk no matter the cause.
If the people in NORML were serious, they would drop the pot leaf and start talking about civil liberties over "legalization".
Until NORML changes their entire brand, their effectiveness will be limited. They do rally hippies which is a positive, but they won't get serious business people who cannot afford reputation risk no matter the cause.
If the people in NORML were serious, they would drop the pot leaf and start talking about civil liberties over "legalization".
I think this is a great response and I hope more people pay attention to it. What many of us think of as a triviality is actually an issue that can harm a person's career, and thus limit support from those people. Whether the issue is real or not (and I have no doubt that it is), the mere perception is enough to prevent some people from supporting a worthy cause.
The fact that you see a cannabis leaf and think "hippy" says way more about you then NORML. They're advocating for freedom to consume the plant after all, using that highly identifiable leaf makes it very clear what they are supporting.
> reputation risk
Do you really think donating to NORML could damage your career? Buffer it with donations to EFF,ACLU,etc. and it's unimpeachable political speech.
> reputation risk
Do you really think donating to NORML could damage your career? Buffer it with donations to EFF,ACLU,etc. and it's unimpeachable political speech.
It is clear that you are not reading what I am writing or are applying huge biases which do not allow you to fully understand my point.
My point is that I don't get the chance to argue why I made a donation to NORML if my name just appears on a company wide list. People see it, they make assumptions.
NORML's failure to see how their branding is weak for large donor support is a huge problem for that organization succeeding in its goal.
This can be applied to as low as conversation among friends or as high as a politician who must choose whether to A) Support individual freedom and civil liberties or B) support drug addicts and criminal, burn out hippies in a drug induced free for all.
If you cannot see how NORML's image aligns anyone who supports it with the later, you should really take a step back and ask yourself the following:
Do you put your affiliation with that on a resume? What are the impacts of that? If you are in tech on the west coast, you may get away with it. If you are in a serious business on the east coast, you will have trouble getting hired.
Change from NORML to a hypothetical organization called: "Organization For the Reduction of Human Rights Violations on US Soil."
Now instead of your resume getting thrown away, you get to talk about how people are dying in prison who should instead be productive members of society.
The point is, I don't care about NORML, I care about trying to figure out a way to get this country out of this mess and I believe that NORML is branded incorrectly to achieve that goal.
My point is that I don't get the chance to argue why I made a donation to NORML if my name just appears on a company wide list. People see it, they make assumptions.
NORML's failure to see how their branding is weak for large donor support is a huge problem for that organization succeeding in its goal.
This can be applied to as low as conversation among friends or as high as a politician who must choose whether to A) Support individual freedom and civil liberties or B) support drug addicts and criminal, burn out hippies in a drug induced free for all.
If you cannot see how NORML's image aligns anyone who supports it with the later, you should really take a step back and ask yourself the following:
Do you put your affiliation with that on a resume? What are the impacts of that? If you are in tech on the west coast, you may get away with it. If you are in a serious business on the east coast, you will have trouble getting hired.
Change from NORML to a hypothetical organization called: "Organization For the Reduction of Human Rights Violations on US Soil."
Now instead of your resume getting thrown away, you get to talk about how people are dying in prison who should instead be productive members of society.
The point is, I don't care about NORML, I care about trying to figure out a way to get this country out of this mess and I believe that NORML is branded incorrectly to achieve that goal.
> 1) Are privately run prisons better for the good of society than publicly run prisons? What does the research say? How biased is the research? etc.
Prisons in general are bad for society. Prison stays are highly deleterious to people and the communities they will return to. Non-violent crimes should certainly not result in prison time, there is no productive reason for that to happen. Property crimes (e.g. theft) are come about from how society is structured and we would be better off addressing social inequality than investing in increasing incarceration. Violent crimes may be better handled with systems that are structurally different from the current prison system.
> 2) More importantly, regardless of whether they are private or public prisons, how do we get less people to be living in them? What are our other options?
War on drugs must end. Social inequality with regards to poverty and homelessness need to be seriously tackled. Racism and sexism need to be addressed from a systemic aspect. Finally for those violent crimes that do require some kind of social response alternatives to the current prison system should be explored.
Prisons in general are bad for society. Prison stays are highly deleterious to people and the communities they will return to. Non-violent crimes should certainly not result in prison time, there is no productive reason for that to happen. Property crimes (e.g. theft) are come about from how society is structured and we would be better off addressing social inequality than investing in increasing incarceration. Violent crimes may be better handled with systems that are structurally different from the current prison system.
> 2) More importantly, regardless of whether they are private or public prisons, how do we get less people to be living in them? What are our other options?
War on drugs must end. Social inequality with regards to poverty and homelessness need to be seriously tackled. Racism and sexism need to be addressed from a systemic aspect. Finally for those violent crimes that do require some kind of social response alternatives to the current prison system should be explored.
[deleted]
Have you seen Marijuana Majority? http://marijuanamajority.com/
re [ADDED]: Why is it a deal breaker to share common ground with a group that some people stereotype as undesirable? I mean, prohibition of drugs is one of the main drivers of the huge prison population.
NORML, the Marijuana Policy Project, and LEAP Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, are the groups that I am most aware of doing advocacy in this respect.
NORML, the Marijuana Policy Project, and LEAP Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, are the groups that I am most aware of doing advocacy in this respect.
I appreciate your comment listing the groups. I will look in to LEAP.
Why is it a deal breaker to share common ground with a group that some people stereotype as undesirable? I mean, prohibition of drugs is one of the main drivers of the huge prison population.
On the West Coast of the US you may be able to get away with open support of NORML at a tech company, but on the East Coast it is pretty much a no go at a serious organization.
If I want to make a donation and have my company match it, I can't make it to NORML without having people judge me while I am not aware of it. That is a complete deal breaker.
I hope their is an organization out there working on this that is doing in the name of enhanced civil liberties. Currently, it is easy for someone to say "You are supporting a bunch of hippies?" I want it easy for me to say "I can't believe you aren't supporting basic civil liberties"!
Why is it a deal breaker to share common ground with a group that some people stereotype as undesirable? I mean, prohibition of drugs is one of the main drivers of the huge prison population.
On the West Coast of the US you may be able to get away with open support of NORML at a tech company, but on the East Coast it is pretty much a no go at a serious organization.
If I want to make a donation and have my company match it, I can't make it to NORML without having people judge me while I am not aware of it. That is a complete deal breaker.
I hope their is an organization out there working on this that is doing in the name of enhanced civil liberties. Currently, it is easy for someone to say "You are supporting a bunch of hippies?" I want it easy for me to say "I can't believe you aren't supporting basic civil liberties"!
The ACLU, The EFF, EPIC.
It's unfortunate that people make such value judgments, but I've worked at places like that too.
It's unfortunate that people make such value judgments, but I've worked at places like that too.
Alot of these articles miss an important part of the equation by just looking at the direct costs to taxpayers to run prison facilities. There are alot more costs to the incarceration mentality than just that.
There is the cost of the entire justice system - police, judges, attorneys, and so on.
Add to that the lost productivity of inmates who could be holding down jobs instead of just twiddling their thumbs.
Then you have costs borne by the inmates' families to visit them, make up for their absence etc.
I think the overall cost to American society from locking up so many people is staggering when you add it all up. Unfortunately people still vote for politicians who promise to be "tough(er) on crime" and the cycle continues...
There is the cost of the entire justice system - police, judges, attorneys, and so on.
Add to that the lost productivity of inmates who could be holding down jobs instead of just twiddling their thumbs.
Then you have costs borne by the inmates' families to visit them, make up for their absence etc.
I think the overall cost to American society from locking up so many people is staggering when you add it all up. Unfortunately people still vote for politicians who promise to be "tough(er) on crime" and the cycle continues...
But then you need to offset that against the damage that would be done if that person was not incarcerated. The $ amount of damage a car thief can do in one month is very high.
The article specifically mentions incarcerations skyrocketing as a result of the drug war. Throwing petty dealers in prison is not an effective use of taxpayer dollars.
Bear in mind that drug dealers are not known to be the most civic minded people and likely commit other offenses. Drug dealing is just what they got busted for.
I've known areas of my town get dramatically safer after some big drug busts. The drug trade has significant externalities.
I've known areas of my town get dramatically safer after some big drug busts. The drug trade has significant externalities.
If it wasn't illegal, there would be no illegal drug trade. Most drug related offenses are during nonviolent events. Drugs are popular in low income areas which is also where there's a lot of other crime. Decriminalizing drugs won't change this, but it will allow the system (legislators, police, & judges) to focus on the crimes that do harm society. Take that to it's logicial conclusion and it's not hard to arrive at the decision that the war on drugs is bad for society.
But what do these drug dealers turn their attentions to? Most of them don't have the education to make similar quantities of money in a 'straight' industry.
Statistically, and in my experience, drug dealing is not a violent crime. They're not going to start knocking over convenience stores. Some of them might scrape together enough capital to start a retail store. Prices and profits are going to take a long time to fall, so most of them will just keep doing what they're doing, except with a little less risk, and they'll be able to keep their cash in a bank, and theoretically pay taxes on it. If things reach the point where it's not really profitable any more, then those people will have to get a real job.
The idea that they will turn to some other criminal pursuit...yeesh. It's like you've never even met any dealers. Imagine that tomorrow, the government made your job illegal. Would you be like, "Well, that does it. I guess I'd better start brushing up on my raping, murdering, and insider trading," or would you maybe not go all-out breaking whatever laws you could? It may shock you to realize that because the hypothetical dealer is breaking the law in one respect, he is best served by not breaking the law in any other respect, in order to not draw attention to himself.
Lastly, we don't have to speculate what will happen, there are countries which have decriminalized drug use -- US states too. Marijuana has been decriminalized in Alaska for almost 40 years, although no one seems to know this. The sky has stubbornly refused to fall.
The idea that they will turn to some other criminal pursuit...yeesh. It's like you've never even met any dealers. Imagine that tomorrow, the government made your job illegal. Would you be like, "Well, that does it. I guess I'd better start brushing up on my raping, murdering, and insider trading," or would you maybe not go all-out breaking whatever laws you could? It may shock you to realize that because the hypothetical dealer is breaking the law in one respect, he is best served by not breaking the law in any other respect, in order to not draw attention to himself.
Lastly, we don't have to speculate what will happen, there are countries which have decriminalized drug use -- US states too. Marijuana has been decriminalized in Alaska for almost 40 years, although no one seems to know this. The sky has stubbornly refused to fall.
Perhaps there is the odd hippie selling homegrown ganja out of his greenhouse who has never been in a fight in his life, but drug gangs control a massive amount of the trade from production to distribution and are certainly happy to use violence if required.
Violence may not be required however in cases where everyone is already scared witless of them. Drug crime and other crime go hand in hand.
If you legalize drugs completely , then serious businesses run by people with MBAs , Venture capital, marketing teams, legal departments etc come into the game. Rather than street level violence, battles are not fought in patent courts and with government lobbying.
Those who are currently dealing drugs don't know how to play this game and will lose.
They can't go and get a straight job because they have no provable work history, probably a criminal record and few contacts outside of the "underworld". They also have become accustomed to a lifestyle of nice cars and (possibly multiple) high maintenance girlfriends, so McDonalds isn't going to cut it.
So they will look for other lucrative opportunities where the MBAs don't want to compete with them (because it is illegal).
Violence may not be required however in cases where everyone is already scared witless of them. Drug crime and other crime go hand in hand.
If you legalize drugs completely , then serious businesses run by people with MBAs , Venture capital, marketing teams, legal departments etc come into the game. Rather than street level violence, battles are not fought in patent courts and with government lobbying.
Those who are currently dealing drugs don't know how to play this game and will lose.
They can't go and get a straight job because they have no provable work history, probably a criminal record and few contacts outside of the "underworld". They also have become accustomed to a lifestyle of nice cars and (possibly multiple) high maintenance girlfriends, so McDonalds isn't going to cut it.
So they will look for other lucrative opportunities where the MBAs don't want to compete with them (because it is illegal).
"Perhaps there is the odd hippie selling homegrown ganja out of his greenhouse who has never been in a fight in his life..."
You don't know what you're talking about.
"Drug crime and other crime go hand in hand." [Citation Needed]
"Those who are currently dealing drugs don't know how to play this game and will lose." And then get a real job.
"They can't go and get a straight job because they have no provable work history, probably a criminal record and few contacts outside of the "underworld". They also have become accustomed to a lifestyle of nice cars and (possibly multiple) high maintenance girlfriends, so McDonalds isn't going to cut it." You have no idea what you're talking about. The margins are not that high.
Your image of drug dealers applies to an extremely small minority. You must only know what these people are like from TV.
"Drug crime and other crime go hand in hand." [Citation Needed]
"Those who are currently dealing drugs don't know how to play this game and will lose." And then get a real job.
"They can't go and get a straight job because they have no provable work history, probably a criminal record and few contacts outside of the "underworld". They also have become accustomed to a lifestyle of nice cars and (possibly multiple) high maintenance girlfriends, so McDonalds isn't going to cut it." You have no idea what you're talking about. The margins are not that high.
Your image of drug dealers applies to an extremely small minority. You must only know what these people are like from TV.
Are you joking, racist, or just stupid? Do you imagine we have jails all over the country brimming with Mexican cartel lords? Are drug-dealing latinos installed on every corner like street lights, all through the US? What does the word "minority" mean to you? I will give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you're not intentionally being racist, and by assuming that you actually live in some area that has some sort of a problem with organized crime. This is far from true for most of the US.
I don't see where I claimed any of those things, especially how my claims are racist?
You claimed that drug dealing is a non violent activity. I showed an example of where that is demonstrably not the case. Roughly 65% of the coke in the US comes through mexico where it is causing serious violence.
In my home country (UK) we also have problems with violence and intimidation from drug gangs in many deprived areas.
You claimed that drug dealing is a non violent activity. I showed an example of where that is demonstrably not the case. Roughly 65% of the coke in the US comes through mexico where it is causing serious violence.
In my home country (UK) we also have problems with violence and intimidation from drug gangs in many deprived areas.
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
Nothing initially. This is the mess we got ourselves into. It will take time to sort itself out. Though perpetuating the problem isn't the solution.
Most likely they switch to other modes of crime to keep up their lifestyle.
OK Might as well keep stupid laws in place then? What's your point? Should we also outlaw fast food b/c more low income people eat it and we all know lower income people commit more crimes?
I got it! We'll outlaw poverty!
I got it! We'll outlaw poverty!
I've responded in more detail elsewhere, but this claim has no basis in reality. This is an extraordinary claim and needs a substantial amount of evidence to support it.
Running their own competing transaction enforcement system (as they're unable to use the one provided by the incumbent force monopoly) is the thing which has significant externalities.
Those externalities are themselves a consequence of the War on Drugs, not the drug dealer. I have lots of drug dealers in my state who run great businesses and contribute to the local economy because the drugs they deal are now legal.
Those things are already against the law. Enforce those laws instead.
Drugs might be easier to arrest people for. That doesn't justify the war on drugs, but it does raise the possibility of having more people who should be in jail not being in jail.
Zealous prosecution of drug crimes also raises the possibility of having more people in jail who aren't involved in any other criminal activity.
I remember when I first saw the movie Robocop, and I thought: Privatized police force? Come on, not even in the USA the "markets will fix everything" ideology could go so far.
Well, this isn't very far from that.
By the way, spending less on rehabilitation doesn't just save money now, it also brings higher recidivism and so makes for a healthier future market for these corporations...
Well, this isn't very far from that.
By the way, spending less on rehabilitation doesn't just save money now, it also brings higher recidivism and so makes for a healthier future market for these corporations...
"I remember when I first saw the movie Robocop, and I thought: Privatized police force? Come on, not even in the USA the "markets will fix everything" ideology could go so far."
The CCA logo (as seen on the flag) even looks vaguely OCP-ish, like something out of the particularly '80s vision of the corporate future as envisioned in the original Robocop.
"spending less on rehabilitation doesn't just save money now, it also brings higher recidivism and so makes for a healthier future market for these corporations..."
Exactly. And let's not forget that these same corporations who run prisons also lobby for harsher sentencing, mandatory minimums, looser prison labor laws, and so forth.
It's a sticky subject because nobody -- politician, man on the street, mother of children, or law-abiding citizen -- wants to come right out and say that he or she is advocating for prisoner's rights. Nobody's ever won an election being "soft" on crime (at least not to my knowledge). So the prison-industrial complex has it pretty easy, as far as built-in political incentives are concerned. Ultimately their agenda is self-fulfilling, and the social externalities are highly negative. Costs may be cut in the short run, but as you suggest, recidivism means nobody in the system is ever really going to escape it -- hence, we're shortchanging the future to save pennies in the present.
The CCA logo (as seen on the flag) even looks vaguely OCP-ish, like something out of the particularly '80s vision of the corporate future as envisioned in the original Robocop.
"spending less on rehabilitation doesn't just save money now, it also brings higher recidivism and so makes for a healthier future market for these corporations..."
Exactly. And let's not forget that these same corporations who run prisons also lobby for harsher sentencing, mandatory minimums, looser prison labor laws, and so forth.
It's a sticky subject because nobody -- politician, man on the street, mother of children, or law-abiding citizen -- wants to come right out and say that he or she is advocating for prisoner's rights. Nobody's ever won an election being "soft" on crime (at least not to my knowledge). So the prison-industrial complex has it pretty easy, as far as built-in political incentives are concerned. Ultimately their agenda is self-fulfilling, and the social externalities are highly negative. Costs may be cut in the short run, but as you suggest, recidivism means nobody in the system is ever really going to escape it -- hence, we're shortchanging the future to save pennies in the present.
> "It's a sticky subject because nobody -- politician, man on the street, mother of children, or law-abiding citizen -- wants to come right out and say that he or she is advocating for prisoner's rights."
True, but part of the problem is framing. Since most people won't make political decisions based on careful reflection, you have to have an emotional pull of some sort. Language like "tough on crime" and "keeping communities safe" frames the debate as those who value enforcing the law and safety versus their opponents, who presumably don't.
Instead of playing that game, what aspiring policians will have to do is frame these kinds of things in terms of human rights, not prisoner's rights. Simply accepting the phrase "prisoner's rights" implies that rights can be doled out by government based on how it chooses to classify citizens. This kind of framing can work:
Political challenger, to incumbent: "Do you support human rights?"
Incumbent: "Of course."
Challenger: "Do you consider prisoners to be human beings?"
Incumbent (worried look): "Well...yes, though I would add that..."
Challenger: "Then why do you support things such as prolonged solitary confinement of prisoners--which is widely agreed to be a form of torture--and the outsourcing of our justice system to race-to-the-bottom private corporations that are held to lower standards and have far less oversight?"
The really sad part is that this is just as disingenous as the narrative supplied by the supporters of the prison industrial complex. But if you want to change things from within the political system you just have to convince voters the other guy is the bad guy.
True, but part of the problem is framing. Since most people won't make political decisions based on careful reflection, you have to have an emotional pull of some sort. Language like "tough on crime" and "keeping communities safe" frames the debate as those who value enforcing the law and safety versus their opponents, who presumably don't.
Instead of playing that game, what aspiring policians will have to do is frame these kinds of things in terms of human rights, not prisoner's rights. Simply accepting the phrase "prisoner's rights" implies that rights can be doled out by government based on how it chooses to classify citizens. This kind of framing can work:
Political challenger, to incumbent: "Do you support human rights?"
Incumbent: "Of course."
Challenger: "Do you consider prisoners to be human beings?"
Incumbent (worried look): "Well...yes, though I would add that..."
Challenger: "Then why do you support things such as prolonged solitary confinement of prisoners--which is widely agreed to be a form of torture--and the outsourcing of our justice system to race-to-the-bottom private corporations that are held to lower standards and have far less oversight?"
The really sad part is that this is just as disingenous as the narrative supplied by the supporters of the prison industrial complex. But if you want to change things from within the political system you just have to convince voters the other guy is the bad guy.
The problem with that argument is it's pretty much the same one used by the prisoner's rights movement in the 60s. Their success in improving conditions for prisoners happened at the same time crime rate exploded. Since then politicians then vowed to "get tough on criminals" eventually in the 90s it "worked".
It's not really clear that being nicer to criminals was the cause of the crime boom nor that getting tough on crime stopped it, but I think the majority of people who lived through this era see it that way. And right now they are also the majority of people who vote (older people tend to vote more often). I suspect that arguments like these won't work for another 20 to 30 years.
It's not really clear that being nicer to criminals was the cause of the crime boom nor that getting tough on crime stopped it, but I think the majority of people who lived through this era see it that way. And right now they are also the majority of people who vote (older people tend to vote more often). I suspect that arguments like these won't work for another 20 to 30 years.
How would you change the language to support sending fewer people to prison?
Go after specific laws. Specifically with drug laws, a strong case can be made about the nanny-state; it seems like a lot of the core republican (especially the libertarian wing's) message would make our current war on drugs a prime example of our big-government nanny-state.
I'll come out right here and say that I advocate for prisoner's rights. On humanitarian grounds.
But if one wanted to do so for the practical matter of wasting less money on prisons and having more productive members of society and less crime, then it would behoove one to do so as well.
But if one wanted to do so for the practical matter of wasting less money on prisons and having more productive members of society and less crime, then it would behoove one to do so as well.
Exactly. The human rights argument is the morally correct one, but the economic-benefit argument is what's going to convince more people in the long run.
The prison industrial complex comes up once in awhile on HN.
Its hard to think of a startup topic. Mostly because prisons (including private ones) have been around so long.
Maybe a startup designed solely to imprison IP violators, or solely to hold patent violators or people who break private website terms of service or something like that.
Maybe a robot guard (or guard tower) to be teleoperated from cheap labor in India, or not operated at all, just pattern match and shoot people who look like they are violating the rules.
Something like the MOOC "movement" but dedicated to selling to private prison administrators for their prisoners?
Implementing something like "a scanner darkly" is going to happen anyway, startup or not.
Maybe a more advanced higher tech house arrest ankle bracelet system?
Maybe a startup designed solely to imprison IP violators, or solely to hold patent violators or people who break private website terms of service or something like that.
Maybe a robot guard (or guard tower) to be teleoperated from cheap labor in India, or not operated at all, just pattern match and shoot people who look like they are violating the rules.
Something like the MOOC "movement" but dedicated to selling to private prison administrators for their prisoners?
Implementing something like "a scanner darkly" is going to happen anyway, startup or not.
Maybe a more advanced higher tech house arrest ankle bracelet system?
> Some states, like Indiana have managed to keep prices low at around $14,000 per inmate. While states like New York pay around $60,000 to keep its citizens behind bars.
OK, but what's the benefit? What is the damage to society and economy an average criminal causes over the course of a year? How much in property, lost trust, mental and physical injuries, increased spending on security, etc. does it cost to have the guy on the loose?
How much of that benefit are prisons eating? I'd love to see an analysis but my guess would be that housing an inmate for ~30k is a bargain.
OK, but what's the benefit? What is the damage to society and economy an average criminal causes over the course of a year? How much in property, lost trust, mental and physical injuries, increased spending on security, etc. does it cost to have the guy on the loose?
How much of that benefit are prisons eating? I'd love to see an analysis but my guess would be that housing an inmate for ~30k is a bargain.
> What is the damage to society and economy an average criminal causes over the course of a year?
Those incarcerated for drug use could potentially be making the government a profit. The only negative effects on society are associated with the supply line, not the individual's behaviour. If some drugs were legalised the net benefit to society would be positive, increased income via taxation and improved relations between the police and the public(a large portion of which are drugs users).
Those incarcerated for drug use could potentially be making the government a profit. The only negative effects on society are associated with the supply line, not the individual's behaviour. If some drugs were legalised the net benefit to society would be positive, increased income via taxation and improved relations between the police and the public(a large portion of which are drugs users).
As someone else already commented, the conditions in Texas prisons run by corporations like CCA aren't exactly the greatest. The state of Texas currently pays, on average, $21k per prisoner. Keeping the prices low at $14k per inmate in states like Indiana and Kentucky could potentially be creating additional costs to the state in the form of recidivism, and other social problems. We didn't find conclusive data (comprehensive hard dollar figures)on this but answering your question is the next step.
Well, if you want to ask those kinds of questions, then you have to start asking, how much does it cost society to let some pothead remain free? Because that's another aspect of this problem: incarcerating people for victimless crimes.
What, exactly, is "an average criminal"? There are laws against causing damage to property that's not yours. No one is saying let all the criminals out. Just stop putting people in jail for hurting absolutely nobody except themselves. 30k a year is a bargain? That's a laugh. regular people live on much less than 30k a year in furnished houses, why should an 8x8 cell and one guard per n inmates cost more than a large number of people make in a year? Why do you and I foot the bill for their medical and education costs? I can hardly afford my own education, much less an education for inmates. If you're not disturbed or angry, or at least critical of the current situation, you should consider a reappraisal of your view on what a bargain is.
I was a prison guard in Texas for a few years (TDCJ, not private). AMA
What can you tell us about the quality of life for prisoners in TDCJ?
Where is the line between giving prisoners something to do vs giving them to much?
Are we working on ways to keep prisons from being "Criminal University"?
Where is the line between giving prisoners something to do vs giving them to much?
Are we working on ways to keep prisons from being "Criminal University"?
>What can you tell us about the quality of life for prisoners in TDCJ?
Awful, No air conditioning, terrible food, not enough to do, terrible medical care, exactly what you would expect in Texas, only worse.
>Where is the line between giving prisoners something to do vs giving them to much?
Idle hands and so forth. Prison officials have very little with which to manage inmates' behavior. Anything that can stave off the intense boredom of incarceration would probably help in the management of prisons. Unfortunately for everyone, the Wyndham School System program (education for inmates) was recently cancelled in Texas to cut expenses. I expect that will just make it even more difficult for future ex-convicts to succeed in any meaningful way after release, increasing recidivism.
>Are we working on ways to keep prisons from being "Criminal University"?
I'm not sure what you mean, but we sure do seem to produce a lot of inmates in this country.
Awful, No air conditioning, terrible food, not enough to do, terrible medical care, exactly what you would expect in Texas, only worse.
>Where is the line between giving prisoners something to do vs giving them to much?
Idle hands and so forth. Prison officials have very little with which to manage inmates' behavior. Anything that can stave off the intense boredom of incarceration would probably help in the management of prisons. Unfortunately for everyone, the Wyndham School System program (education for inmates) was recently cancelled in Texas to cut expenses. I expect that will just make it even more difficult for future ex-convicts to succeed in any meaningful way after release, increasing recidivism.
>Are we working on ways to keep prisons from being "Criminal University"?
I'm not sure what you mean, but we sure do seem to produce a lot of inmates in this country.
By "Criminal University" I assume they are referring to the phenomenon of a person going to prison for something minor, e.g. like stealing a bike, and coming out with intimate knowledge of how to commit more serious crimes.
In that case, yes, it's a real phenomena. People go in for minor things. They make contacts (network). After release many have no (real) alternative but to participate in criminal activity since they cannot find a job due to their background check.
1. What percentage of the inmates in your prison were there for drug related crimes?
2. What is your opinion on the "war on drugs" and the increased size of the inmate population that it creates?
1. That information is available to officers only when the situation requires it. I did have access to inmates' "travel cards" which detail their crimes and other information because I routinely transported inmates to other units; usually to medical or psychiatric facilities. I did not have the ability or occasion to compile statistics, but my best guess is that a lot of them were convicted of drug crimes. My best guess though is really no better than any random person's because there were so many prison units in TDCJ, and the populations of those units were classified partly based on their crimes. Most of the people I transported were violent offenders.
2. A huge and expensive tragedy of justice and of economic policy. Imprisoning people for non-violent drug charges takes what are often productively employed people out of the work force and turns them into a unit of negative productivity, taking with them, probably another additional person by the time you account for all of the officers and support staff needed for running a huge prison infrastructure. People imprisoned even for drug charges rarely re-enter the workforce, at least not at any reasonable level. After release, they are stigmatized and often victimized again through various ex-con hire subsidy programs.
2. A huge and expensive tragedy of justice and of economic policy. Imprisoning people for non-violent drug charges takes what are often productively employed people out of the work force and turns them into a unit of negative productivity, taking with them, probably another additional person by the time you account for all of the officers and support staff needed for running a huge prison infrastructure. People imprisoned even for drug charges rarely re-enter the workforce, at least not at any reasonable level. After release, they are stigmatized and often victimized again through various ex-con hire subsidy programs.
How are they victimized through hire subsidy programs? I hadn't heard of that. Do you mean that because of the program people around them at their jobs know they're ex-cons and treat them worse?
In Texas we have a taxpayer subsidized program to incentivize employers to hire ex-convicts and otherwise help ex-convicts get jobs called Project RIO. I shouldn't imply that the problem is with Project RIO, but rather with some of the unscrupulous employers who participate. The worst problem that I am aware of is that sometimes employers will illegally withhold pay, and basically the program allows unethical employers to pay below minimum or at least below market wages to parolees, force them to work overtime uncompensated, etc. The close relationship between company and parole officer puts the employer in a position to induce a lot of undue influence on a parolee-employee.
Anecdote/heresay: There is just such an employer in my town. They treat regular employees pretty badly, and Project RIO types, even worse. These poor guys don't make enough to support themselves, and thus have low/no job mobility. They all live in a gov't housing thing, on the wrong side of the tracks. They are pretty much destined to fail.
Anecdote/heresay: There is just such an employer in my town. They treat regular employees pretty badly, and Project RIO types, even worse. These poor guys don't make enough to support themselves, and thus have low/no job mobility. They all live in a gov't housing thing, on the wrong side of the tracks. They are pretty much destined to fail.
Thanks, that makes sense. (Shudder.)
What level of security (minimum, maximum, etc.) was the prison?
I worked at three different units Beto I, Estelle, and Ferguson. All were maximum security. Beto and Ferguson primarily housed violent offenders aged 18-30. What fun! I probably visited a dozen other units in the system during my employment there.
I don't care how interesting the article is. I do not want to deal with the spammy popups.
Sorry about that. We've disabled that right now...
I would like to see data on whether these private prisons are unionized. It seems like the prison unions are out to keep their services needed.
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2011/06/the-role-of-the-p...
http://www.policymic.com/articles/41531/union-of-the-snake-h...
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2011/06/the-role-of-the-p...
http://www.policymic.com/articles/41531/union-of-the-snake-h...
The author mentions private prison scandals, but neglects to mention that scandals occur in public prisons like [1] this one as well.
[1] http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/04/23/25-correctional-off...
[1] http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/04/23/25-correctional-off...
Meanwhile, the DEA is teaming up with the CCA.
Not too far from the truth. Here a couple of judges busted taking bribes for filling private prisons.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10747919
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/luzerne-s-other-disgraced-j...
Also this: http://www.texasprisonbidness.org/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10747919
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/luzerne-s-other-disgraced-j...
Also this: http://www.texasprisonbidness.org/
There are lots of places besides HN to talk about stuff like this. Every time we try to talk about it here, the level of civility on HN degrades. Sometimes just a little, sometimes by a lot. I assume that's one of the reasons that articles like this are discouraged by the site guidelines.
I flagged this post.
I flagged this post.
True, and I admit to getting hot under the collar.
But I would argue that in a way that articles like this should get viewed and discussed by the HN crowd in the context of hacking civilization.
This particular subject absolutely defines the world in which we live in, and a it's not a pretty picture. It happens because we let it, and we let it because we collectively don't care. We collectively don't care because we remain (intentionally) ignorant of the situation.
It's turtles of despair all the way down....
But I would argue that in a way that articles like this should get viewed and discussed by the HN crowd in the context of hacking civilization.
This particular subject absolutely defines the world in which we live in, and a it's not a pretty picture. It happens because we let it, and we let it because we collectively don't care. We collectively don't care because we remain (intentionally) ignorant of the situation.
It's turtles of despair all the way down....
Primarily a side effect of the war on drugs.
1) Are privately run prisons better for the good of society than publicly run prisons? What does the research say? How biased is the research? etc.
2) More importantly, regardless of whether they are private or public prisons, how do we get less people to be living in them? What are our other options?
Last time on HN I asked this and the answer was, "support NORML". I then went and tried to find other organizations looking to make sweeping changes. I was not successful.
The problem with NORML is their image. No serious person in business can support an organization that uses a POT leaf as their symbol and seems to be primarily an organization for hippies to sit around and talk about the government. I realize that their image may not be their reality, but I can't write a company matched check to them without people wondering "what I'm smoking".
So... The question I am asking is, what can I do about one of the largest human rights atrocities ever committed by the United States, my country? Its obvious that at the very least we can move a lot of people to different types of facilities. We can probably do a lot more than that, possibly reversing 45 years of discriminatory drug laws and possibly taking increased societal risks to reduce the amount of years the average American spends in prison.
I'm somewhat distraught that this problem exists but I haven't come up with a solution yet.
Anyone out there have any ideas on who I can support or what can be done?
[ADDED] The Norml image problem is probably bad on the west coast, but is a deal breaker on the east coast.