Just noticed how no one has mentioned how the criminalization of drug users creates thousands of free prison workers.
I can't understand how prisons can be private... it creates an incentive for them to lobby keeping drugs illegal. There are so many horror stories, like prisons saying that they'll close if they don't get some more prisoners.
> the criminalization of drug users creates thousands of free prison workers.
The antislavery amendment* explicitly permits prison labor and this was put in as a sop to the former slave states. The later used this to reproduce their prior system de facto (look up Parchman and Angola prisons for much discussion of the sordid details).
Not surprising Jim Crow was an important part of this, and the use and deployment of drug laws (other than alcohol) began as part of this racial mechanism.
* 13th: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist..."
>and this was put in as a sop to the former slave states.
Citation please.
While the prison population was much lower at the time they were being used as municipal labor. The "except prisoners" loophole was intended to grandfather in that system so as not to turn upside down the prison systems of all the states in the union at the time.
Furthermore "a sop to the former slave states" was the last thing congress was doing at the time. They were far more interested in maximizing the legislate utility of time spent without having southern reps present to vote against northern interests. The threat of more states (MD, TN in particular) seceding was the line they were trying to walk up to but not cross.
Edit: Is my analysis wrong or just inconvenient? I would be very interested in any source that can show that the northern states included the prison exemption in the 13A as a means to give the south a way to cling to some part of their slavery economy as opposed to a pragmatic "we'd rather not upset our prison systems, we already have a war and lots of unrest on our hands" exemption.
From a fairly basic set of morals, both privatized prisons and health care are obviously wrong. Heavy rules and regulation could reduce the problem somewhat, but fundamentally, you have a business that wishes to profit. In terms of health care, it is providing less and charging more. In terms of prison, it's incarcerating more and spending less / treating worse. The US is IMO far into coo-coo land on the approach to both, and with so many of the things that make no sense there, it's deeply rooted in systemic racism.
> From a fairly basic set of morals... obviously wrong...
"Privatized" prisons are a typical distraction from the deeper problems. California's prison system sterilized women as late as 2010, and those were public prisons. The state of Texas saved a little money by pulling inmates' teeth and putting them on liquid diets instead of supplying dentures, and only just started to reverse course in 2018.
Even private actors actively conspiring to exploit people have a hard time matching the sadistic cruelty that the public and the law enforcement apparatus train on those who it has deemed un-peopled — even many of those merely accused of crimes, and not yet tried.
There are certainly more than one set of problems indeed. I suppose that was your point, and not just a whataboutism?
Edit: To clarify, since I assume the immediate downvote was from the parent. A "typical distraction from deeper problems" is not relevant here, as, I am in fact, explicitly, and quite deliberately pointing out the moral issues of privatized prisons and health care. The definition of the logical fallacy I am asking whether or not you intended is the "attempt to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument". Now, as I mentioned, I do not think the issues you've pointed out are non-existent, or non-problematic, they are just irrelevant to the issue and point I made. So, if what you wanted was to give particular examples of issues in non-private institutions, then, by all means. I don't see how that relates, and it would be a pretty spot on example of a whataboutism.
Pretty sure the person you're responding was to suggesting that your argument is missing the forest for the trees. That privatized prisons is a lesser evil when considering all the evils wrought upon those imprisoned be they in a public or private prison.
Ah, I see. Well, thank for clarifying. My argument was however that, by not explaining what this "larger evil" is, and just giving examples that exist and are equally problematic, if not more, in private prisons, while at the same time not addressing my point, which was the moral aspect of profiting from incarceration... That the response I got seemed disingenuous or unrelated? I don't know. People seem to downvoted anything that isn't pro USA. Just see my other comment. I took the time to answer how this doesn't apply to food production, and also got downvoted without explanation. So, maybe this isn't the website for thoughtful discussions that it once was. Arguing the immorality of private prisons is not the same as arguing the morality of public prisons. The response I got seemed based on an assumption that I argued the latter, and is a logical fallacy.
A: profit on prison population has significant moral problems
B: public prisons exploit workers in the US!
A: well... That's, bad too.
And, it's a bit tiresome. I'm pointing out something that is pretty obvious, yet, instead of some argument that can be refuted, my argument is made to be something different. And that's the crux of it. People don't like that their constitution explicitly allows forced labour of incarcerated people, aka slavery. I wouldn't like it either. It's immoral and wrong. Put it under a for profit business? Even worse... I mean. What counter argument can you possibly have. So, of course people will attempt to refute it with logical fallacies instead.
I see. Well, I'm actually very aware what the guidelines say.
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
However, I did not in particular complain about the downvotes. I minded silent dismissal and intellectually dishonest discourse. I took the immediate downvotes as a need to clarify, and stated that as the reason. But, I might as well not do that. Point taken.
>From a fairly basic set of morals, both privatized prisons and health care are obviously wrong. [...] In terms of health care, it is providing less and charging more. In terms of prison, it's incarcerating more and spending less / treating worse.
Can't you extended this argument to most things? ie. "privatized food production is obviously wrong because you're providing less and charging more"
For food production, the intention is that at least the mechanics of capitalism can mitigate bad products. Incarceration has multiple purposes in a society, to which one can argue over the effect or desire, but the main ones are:
- Person who did bad thing should be punished
- People should not want to do bad things because that would lead to punishment
- People who do bad things should be stopped from doing more bad things
- People who have done bad things should learn and/or be given the means to do things differently
The last one is pretty big in a lot of places outside the US, and vice versa for the first one. Regardless, the difference between incarcerating people to fulfill these functions, and creating a product for people to buy, are fundamentally different in a capitalistic setting. Private businesses wish to maximize profit. Then, one should consider the effect of this in each case. So let's do that.
Food? Well, you make the process cheaper or more effective, and otherwise there are regulations in place in order to not cause harm or deceive. You try to get as many as possible to buy your product. However, if you do not make a product that people want, then, you don't get to sell it. Whether or not one thinks capitalism is a good thing, one could argue that this in its intention, can function OK.
Prisons? How do you maximize profit? The selling point is to also make it more effective. This is indeed OK. The moral problem is the other parts of maximizing profit: increasing the prison population, spending less on treating the prison population, less on education and rehabilitation, why not also make them do stuff? All of this would increase the profit margin. As I mentioned, rules and regulation can mitigate this, similar to how they can exist for food in terms of not using harmful ingredients, etc.
But fundamentally, there is a moral component to how one treats other people, that doesn't exist for how one produces a product.
To answer your question succinctly: no. Not unless it's inmates making carrot soup through forced labour.
Let's keep this in perspective. 8.1% of prisoners in the US are in private prisons. Maybe that number is too high, but clearly it isn't the primary driver in US justice policy.
This entire conversation seems especially resistant to facts, due to their inconvenience. No matter, HN doesn't exist to solve the world's problems, only bitch about them.
>it creates an incentive for them to lobby keeping drugs illegal.
Does it? As far as I can tell it expands it but does not create it. This is an important distinction because that incentive exists even with 100% public prisons. Even with public prisons, workers are prisons, any organizations that represent those workers, and any private organizations which supply the needs of prisons all have an incentive to expand prisons.
>There are so many horror stories, like prisons saying that they'll close if they don't get some more prisoners.
And if a public prison has to close, it will still be an issue for those who work there and those who supply it with goods. Even if they were guaranteed another job, which isn't likely common to begin with, would it be comparable in pay, duties, and commute time?
In every country with prisons this incentive exists, so I think it would be worthwhile to looking at how other countries handle it.
Its not the private prisons who decide to send people to prisons. Its actual judges following local, state or federal laws. Lets not pretend there is no judicial system...
That's not the norm though. The norm is self-righteous bureaucrats, who are worried they will be seen as weak on crime, or actually want to be even harsher than their constituents. There's scores of judges and legislators that feel this way. Most of the rest of them don't have the guts to stand up to them.
Its actually better if prisons are private. If they dont meet standards you can shut them down or hurt them financially. State prisons are the worst because there is no accountability whatsoever. Look at countries that ONLY have state prisons you will be shocked.
Here in germany we don't turn prisoners into slaves. We give them opportunities to learn a job to resocialize after their time. Yes, there is work for prisoners, and yes it pays way less than it should, but again, it's part of the reso program.
Good for Germany. I'm glad their prisons are well run.
You know how when a politician gets asked a tough question they avoid answering and immediately pivot to a trope where they have a couple talking points they can hit?
Well that's what you just did.
Prisons should be rehabilitating prisoners but the punishment vs rehabilitation debate is an almost completely tangential issue from public vs private.
I don't think private prisons are necessarily good, they seem to suffer from the same "the government doesn't cut and run from bad vendors" issues that many other things government contracts out do, but there is a legitimate pro/con debate to be had over whether the entity sending people to prison should be under the same umbrella as the entity administrating and in some cases profiting off of (massive conflict of interests!!) prisons.
>Here in germany we don't turn prisoners into slaves.
Do you tell them where they must live and how they must behave? If they disobey and go about their daily lives ignoring what you tell them (meaning they don't even show up for prison) do you use force to make them comply? Even if you don't profit off of them, that is still a form of slavery. And to be pedantic, the people who are forcing them to obey are making a profit because they receive a paycheck for their actions, one they would lose if they didn't force the prisoners to behave. The state may lose money, but the actual people running the prison are profiting off enslaving prisoners.
