Should private prisons be outlawed?

[John Dibble]

or just get rid of prisons.

capital punishment for every criminal then?

No, for non-violent criminals we can just cut off their hands.

[dead0man]

Isn't it fun when someone posts something that is obviously outside the boundaries of "normal" and adds NOTHING to back up their outlandish claims?

[Bono]

Yes, but so should public ones.

The only penalty for a crime should be restitution--or death, in case of murder, because restitution is just impossible there.

[dead0man]

How much does a rape cost in your system?

[minionofmidas]

with public ones being outlawed.

Why?

     Maybe I am mistaken, but wouldn't it be cheaper for the government to just make sure that they treat their prisoners in a respectable fashion than it would be to actually run your own prisons?

Almost certainly not.

     Oh? I wasn't aware that regulation was typically more expensive than operation, it seems.

You still have to pay for the prisons' operation, you know.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

with public ones being outlawed.

Why?

     Maybe I am mistaken, but wouldn't it be cheaper for the government to just make sure that they treat their prisoners in a respectable fashion than it would be to actually run your own prisons?

Almost certainly not.

     Oh? I wasn't aware that regulation was typically more expensive than operation, it seems.

You still have to pay for the prisons' operation, you know.

I'm sure that the magic of teh market will find some way of dealing with that "reality based" problem.

[Earth]

I don't believe their ownership is the problem, but their conduct, whoever it is, private or governmental.

[The Mikado]

Yes, but so should public ones.

The only penalty for a crime should be restitution--or death, in case of murder, because restitution is just impossible there.

For arson, would you burn the perp's house down?

[Bono]

Yes, but so should public ones.

The only penalty for a crime should be restitution--or death, in case of murder, because restitution is just impossible there.

For arson, would you burn the perp's house down?

No, they'd have to pay for the destroyed property, and a whole lot more in punitive damages due to the affective value of the things lost (I'm assuming it's a house that would've been burned now, not a factory or something).

[John Dibble]

Yes, but so should public ones.

The only penalty for a crime should be restitution--or death, in case of murder, because restitution is just impossible there.

For arson, would you burn the perp's house down?

No, they'd have to pay for the destroyed property, and a whole lot more in punitive damages due to the affective value of the things lost (I'm assuming it's a house that would've been burned now, not a factory or something).

And if they have no money and no job, what then? And since we wouldn't be incarcerating them in any fashion, what if they decide to do it again and again?

[Bono]

Yes, but so should public ones.

The only penalty for a crime should be restitution--or death, in case of murder, because restitution is just impossible there.

For arson, would you burn the perp's house down?

No, they'd have to pay for the destroyed property, and a whole lot more in punitive damages due to the affective value of the things lost (I'm assuming it's a house that would've been burned now, not a factory or something).

And if they have no money and no job, what then? And since we wouldn't be incarcerating them in any fashion, what if they decide to do it again and again?

Then they should become indentured servants to the victims for enough time to pay restitution.

[Associate Justice PiT]

with public ones being outlawed.

Why?

     Maybe I am mistaken, but wouldn't it be cheaper for the government to just make sure that they treat their prisoners in a respectable fashion than it would be to actually run your own prisons?

Almost certainly not.

     Oh? I wasn't aware that regulation was typically more expensive than operation, it seems.

You still have to pay for the prisons' operation, you know.

I'm sure that the magic of teh market will find some way of dealing with that "reality based" problem.

     I actually realized that only private prisons aren't that feasible (since as you pointed out, they need some means of turning a profit). But I couldn't figure out a good way to jump back into the flow & forgot about it until now.

     Also, I'm a propertarian, not an anarcho-capitalist. Get it straight. Not to suggest that they're mutually exclusive, though I choose to emphasize the former.

[John Dibble]

Yes, but so should public ones.

The only penalty for a crime should be restitution--or death, in case of murder, because restitution is just impossible there.

For arson, would you burn the perp's house down?

No, they'd have to pay for the destroyed property, and a whole lot more in punitive damages due to the affective value of the things lost (I'm assuming it's a house that would've been burned now, not a factory or something).

And if they have no money and no job, what then? And since we wouldn't be incarcerating them in any fashion, what if they decide to do it again and again?

Then they should become indentured servants to the victims for enough time to pay restitution.

And how exactly are you going to enforce that? There would be nothing stopping them from leaving.

And you forgot to answer the second question - what's to stop them from repeat offending?

[Coburn In 2012]

No they should be encouraged.  Outsourcing of former big government jobs is one answer to our problems. 

[Bono]

Yes, but so should public ones.

The only penalty for a crime should be restitution--or death, in case of murder, because restitution is just impossible there.

For arson, would you burn the perp's house down?

No, they'd have to pay for the destroyed property, and a whole lot more in punitive damages due to the affective value of the things lost (I'm assuming it's a house that would've been burned now, not a factory or something).

And if they have no money and no job, what then? And since we wouldn't be incarcerating them in any fashion, what if they decide to do it again and again?

Then they should become indentured servants to the victims for enough time to pay restitution.

And how exactly are you going to enforce that? There would be nothing stopping them from leaving.

And you forgot to answer the second question - what's to stop them from repeat offending?

What's to stop someone who's left prison from re-offending.

Anyway, the enforcement of the indentured servitude would be up to the victim, backed by the courts of course.

[John Dibble]

What's to stop someone who's left prison from re-offending.

Aside from the usual things outside of prison, nothing. But they can't re-offend while still in prison, unlike your proposed system. Your system allows them to run loose with little fear of real punishment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You clearly haven't thought this through. Do you expect the victim to hold the criminal at gunpoint 24/7 without ever sleeping? And what if the criminal is physically superior to the victims - you don't see a strong criminal harming his victims again?

Let me make this a little more personal for you - suppose someone decided to burn down your house, smash up your car with a sledgehammer, and stalk your female family members. They have no money to pay you restitution, so the courts make him your indentured servant. Can you seriously say you would want that nutjob to be anywhere near you or your family?

[Bono]

What's to stop someone who's left prison from re-offending.

Aside from the usual things outside of prison, nothing. But they can't re-offend while still in prison, unlike your proposed system. Your system allows them to run loose with little fear of real punishment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You clearly haven't thought this through. Do you expect the victim to hold the criminal at gunpoint 24/7 without ever sleeping? And what if the criminal is physically superior to the victims - you don't see a strong criminal harming his victims again?

Let me make this a little more personal for you - suppose someone decided to burn down your house, smash up your car with a sledgehammer, and stalk your female family members. They have no money to pay you restitution, so the courts make him your indentured servant. Can you seriously say you would want that nutjob to be anywhere near you or your family?

When you think of indentured servitude, you're thinking of the antebellum South. There is no reason things have to be like that in modern times. Many crime-victims could just pool their criminal servants together, hire some guards, and put them to work in some labor intensive industry, like stone-cutting.

[dead0man]

Victims have to hire people?  That doesn't seem fair.

I ask again, how much does rape cost?  Mike Tyson wants to know.  Is it over $100k?  Does it matter how much money the rapist has?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No, as long as they're following the laws/regulations of normal prisons.

[John Dibble]

When you think of indentured servitude, you're thinking of the antebellum South. There is no reason things have to be like that in modern times. Many crime-victims could just pool their criminal servants together, hire some guards, and put them to work in some labor intensive industry, like stone-cutting.

So let's get this straight, you want to get hire out guards privately and have them watch over the criminals to prevent their escape and ensure they work. How is that not a private prison?

[opebo]

Of course they should be outlawed, and imprisonment should be used only in the most sparing of ways by the State.  Even in cases where it is necessary, great care should be taken to ensure that the imprisoned is not harmed any more than is unavoidable.  By this I mean that per-prison expenditures should be many multiples of what they are now in order to ensure pleasant facilities, safety, and adequate staffing.  Accountability and oversight should be much higher as well, with prisoners having a hand in the running of the prison.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

with prisoners having a hand in the running of the prison.

They do already, a lot of the term. Er... some prisoners anyway. A certain sort of prisoner.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The very idea of private prisons is a bad idea.

When you start profiting off of prisoners, you will always want more... and as your company grows and your lobbying power grows, you will start seeing a push to find more and more prisoners.

Eventually, the company will start charging more to run the prisons than it would to actually just run them publicly.

If you are being charged and penalized by the people, then you should be imprisoned by the people as well.

[2952-0-0]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUKTRE51C0EP20090213

U.S. judges admit to jailing children for money

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Two judges pleaded guilty on Thursday to accepting more than $2.6 million from a private youth detention centre in Pennsylvania in return for giving hundreds of youths and teenagers long sentences.

Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan of the Court of Common Pleas in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, entered plea agreements in federal court in Scranton admitting that they took payoffs from PA Childcare and a sister company, Western PA Childcare, between 2003 and 2006.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUKTRE51C0EP20090213

U.S. judges admit to jailing children for money

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Two judges pleaded guilty on Thursday to accepting more than $2.6 million from a private youth detention centre in Pennsylvania in return for giving hundreds of youths and teenagers long sentences.

Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan of the Court of Common Pleas in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, entered plea agreements in federal court in Scranton admitting that they took payoffs from PA Childcare and a sister company, Western PA Childcare, between 2003 and 2006.

Whoa. This should get a thread of its own. (And those Judges should be forced into 10 years hard labour - 20 years for the youth detention centre staff).