On 5/1/2021 9:44 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:32:15 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> The reason is that most people committing crimes are /not/ in a mental
>> state conducive to considering possible consequences.
>
> If that's because the crime in question is a crime of passion, it's true that
> not much can be done.
>
> But if it's because one is dealing with a naturally impulsive individual,
> then we can still reduce crime. Deter those who can be deterred; institutionalize
> those who suffer from impulsiveness and cannot.
>
> John Savard
>

Yikes. The surviving members of the Soviet Politburo called--apparently
they'd like their thought process back.

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On Sat, 1 May 2021 08:52:47 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 5:03:01 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 03:38:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:27:27 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> >> Well that's what we have now, "shooting people for anything other than
>> >> legitimate law enforcement purposes" is murder. The trouble is that
>> >> "legitimate law enforcement purposes" includes "existing while black".
>
>> >That's not what we have now, because the second set of quotation marks
>> >around "legitimate law enforcement purposes" would be quoting someone
>> >else instead of me. Shooting someone just for being black is, of course,
>> >not shooting him for a genuinely legitimate law-enforcement purpose.
>
>> That is little consolation when the cops decided that shooting you is
>> a "legitimate law-enforcement purpose" and the people who are supposed
>> to be keeping the cops honest agree with them.
>
>> >I certainly do not believe that the individual police officer should get to define
>> >what is a legitimate law-enforcement action.
>
>> That ship has sailed. Right now we are trying to keep it from hitting
>> the iceberg.
>
>You and I seem to both agree on what should be fixed, even if I think that
>less has to be done to fix the problem. Basically, I think that the deaths of
>innocent black people are largely caused by fear - and that this fear is,
>unfortunately, based on reality.
>
>Because of that, I think we still need to be "tough on crime" even as we act
>to stop the police from being the problem. If we have cops who can't be
>trusted with the power we need, get new cops.

As long as you buy into that sort of "argument", you will be part of
the problem, not part of the solution.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 2021-05-02 9:23 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 1 May 2021 08:52:47 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 5:03:01 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 03:38:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:27:27 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>>> Well that's what we have now, "shooting people for anything other than
>>>>> legitimate law enforcement purposes" is murder. The trouble is that
>>>>> "legitimate law enforcement purposes" includes "existing while black".
>>
>>>> That's not what we have now, because the second set of quotation marks
>>>> around "legitimate law enforcement purposes" would be quoting someone
>>>> else instead of me. Shooting someone just for being black is, of course,
>>>> not shooting him for a genuinely legitimate law-enforcement purpose.
>>
>>> That is little consolation when the cops decided that shooting you is
>>> a "legitimate law-enforcement purpose" and the people who are supposed
>>> to be keeping the cops honest agree with them.
>>
>>>> I certainly do not believe that the individual police officer should get to define
>>>> what is a legitimate law-enforcement action.
>>
>>> That ship has sailed. Right now we are trying to keep it from hitting
>>> the iceberg.
>>
>> You and I seem to both agree on what should be fixed, even if I think that
>> less has to be done to fix the problem. Basically, I think that the deaths of
>> innocent black people are largely caused by fear - and that this fear is,
>> unfortunately, based on reality.
>>
>> Because of that, I think we still need to be "tough on crime" even as we act
>> to stop the police from being the problem. If we have cops who can't be
>> trusted with the power we need, get new cops.
>
> As long as you buy into that sort of "argument", you will be part of
> the problem, not part of the solution.
>

Yup.

The US isn't "tough on crime" because it's good for the nation.

The US is tough on "crime" because it's good for the corporations that
now run so many prisons expand their bottom line.

On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 12:34:37 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:

[snip]

> The US isn't "tough on crime" because it's good for the nation.
>
> The US is tough on "crime" because it's good for the corporations that
> now run so many prisons expand their bottom line.

[quote]

Statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice show that, as of 2019,
there were 116,000 state and federal prisoners housed in privately owned
prisons in the U.S., constituting 8.1% of the overall U.S. prison population.
Broken down to prison type, 15.7% of the federal prison population in the
United States is housed in private prisons and 7.1% of the U.S. state prison
population is housed in private prisons.

{Footnote 54 leads to:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p19.pdf }

[/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison

Going by the "cui bono?" maxim, I'd point at the Corrections
Officers lobby, as 91.9% of prisoners are still in government
prisons.

Politicians who get to "pose for holy pictures" have long have
incentives for enacting laws that criminalize more and more
behavior, and increasing penalties for various crimes and "crimes."

--
Kevin R

On 2021-05-02 3:46 p.m., Kevrob wrote:
> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 12:34:37 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> The US isn't "tough on crime" because it's good for the nation.
>>
>> The US is tough on "crime" because it's good for the corporations that
>> now run so many prisons expand their bottom line.
>
> [quote]
>
> Statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice show that, as of 2019,
> there were 116,000 state and federal prisoners housed in privately owned
> prisons in the U.S., constituting 8.1% of the overall U.S. prison population.
> Broken down to prison type, 15.7% of the federal prison population in the
> United States is housed in private prisons and 7.1% of the U.S. state prison
> population is housed in private prisons.
>
> {Footnote 54 leads to:
> https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p19.pdf }
>
> [/quote]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison
>
> Going by the "cui bono?" maxim, I'd point at the Corrections
> Officers lobby, as 91.9% of prisoners are still in government
> prisons.
>
> Politicians who get to "pose for holy pictures" have long have
> incentives for enacting laws that criminalize more and more
> behavior, and increasing penalties for various crimes and "crimes."
>

How much did those private prisons earn?

On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 6:52:24 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-05-02 3:46 p.m., Kevrob wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 12:34:37 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> The US isn't "tough on crime" because it's good for the nation.
> >>
> >> The US is tough on "crime" because it's good for the corporations that
> >> now run so many prisons expand their bottom line.
> >
> > [quote]
> >
> > Statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice show that, as of 2019,
> > there were 116,000 state and federal prisoners housed in privately owned
> > prisons in the U.S., constituting 8.1% of the overall U.S. prison population.
> > Broken down to prison type, 15.7% of the federal prison population in the
> > United States is housed in private prisons and 7.1% of the U.S. state prison
> > population is housed in private prisons.
> >
> > {Footnote 54 leads to:
> > https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p19.pdf }
> >
> > [/quote]
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison
> >
> > Going by the "cui bono?" maxim, I'd point at the Corrections
> > Officers lobby, as 91.9% of prisoners are still in government
> > prisons.
> >
> > Politicians who get to "pose for holy pictures" have long have
> > incentives for enacting laws that criminalize more and more
> > behavior, and increasing penalties for various crimes and "crimes."
> >
> How much did those private prisons earn?

I couldn't tell you off the top of my head.

I'd figure the key question should be, for the same level of
prisoner, requiring similar services, does a state government
or the Feds spend more running its own facility or contracting
out? This isn't to say that government prisons don't have
additional costs attached to the type of prisoners they don't
send to private operations. But is using the private option
saving any money? It probably kept some states from having
to increase their bonded debt load, if they avoided having to build
new prisons or renovate old ones. Not having to fund fringe
benefits (health insurance, retirement plans) would have been
another cost offloaded on the vendor.

There's certainly a history of corruption involved the interface of
vendors, who may compete or collude with each other, and
governments as monopsonistic (or oligopsonistic) buyers. See:
any public works project or defense contract where getting the
best for the taxpayer at the best price takes a back seat to
rewarding political allies, doling out "pork barrel" spending,
or outright bribery.

Example involving prisons:

https://reason.com/2019/08/20/4-businessmen-used-cash-and-casino-chips-as-bribes-to-secure-mississippi-prison-contracts/

A study, done, coincidentally, in Mississippi that any per prisoner
savings are clawed back by inmates serving more of their sentences
in private hands, due to racking up more violations of rules.

https://thecrimereport.org/2020/08/21/private-prisons-drive-up-cost-of-incarceration-study/

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2523238

Private or public provider, rent seekers gonna seek!

From my libertarian vantage point, I'd work on releasing/commuting/
pardoning "drug criminals" (sic), especially ones who were not convicted
of acts of violence. That's drive down the cost of the system, and
ameliorate prison overcrowding.

--
Kevin R

On 3 May 2021 at 01:48:32 BST, "Kevrob" <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:

> I'd figure the key question should be, for the same level of
> prisoner, requiring similar services, does a state government
> or the Feds spend more running its own facility or contracting
> out?

No, the economics of it is not the key question.

The key question is "what are the societal effects of incarcerating
people for profit?"

Cheers - Jaimie
--
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use
as my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no
longer figure out how to use my telephone
-- Bjarne Stroustrup

On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 7:58:21 AM UTC-4, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On 3 May 2021 at 01:48:32 BST, "Kevrob" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd figure the key question should be, for the same level of
> > prisoner, requiring similar services, does a state government
> > or the Feds spend more running its own facility or contracting
> > out?
> No, the economics of it is not the key question.
>
> The key question is "what are the societal effects of incarcerating
> people for profit?"

Why?

If the 8.1% of US prisoners incarcerated in for-profit facilities
were transferred to space operated on a "not for profit" basis,
the employees of that system would receive the economic
benefit. When it is in the form of a public employee's salary
& benefit package, is it somehow cleaner and purer?

I'd recommend reading some Buchanan and Tullock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice

Incarcerating people for things that should not be considered
crimes strained our systems long before private corrections
facilities were authorized.

--
Kevin R

On 2021-05-03 8:12 p.m., Kevrob wrote:
> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 7:58:21 AM UTC-4, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> On 3 May 2021 at 01:48:32 BST, "Kevrob" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd figure the key question should be, for the same level of
>>> prisoner, requiring similar services, does a state government
>>> or the Feds spend more running its own facility or contracting
>>> out?
>> No, the economics of it is not the key question.
>>
>> The key question is "what are the societal effects of incarcerating
>> people for profit?"
>
> Why?
>
> If the 8.1% of US prisoners incarcerated in for-profit facilities
> were transferred to space operated on a "not for profit" basis,
> the employees of that system would receive the economic
> benefit. When it is in the form of a public employee's salary
> & benefit package, is it somehow cleaner and purer?

But it's not JUST the employees who benefit, is it?

Why do private corporations do anything?

What do you think private prison corporations want in return for their
political donations?

>
> I'd recommend reading some Buchanan and Tullock.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
>
> Incarcerating people for things that should not be considered
> crimes strained our systems long before private corrections
> facilities were authorized.

No... ...but the trend is accelerating.

On Mon, 3 May 2021 20:12:34 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 7:58:21 AM UTC-4, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> On 3 May 2021 at 01:48:32 BST, "Kevrob" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I'd figure the key question should be, for the same level of
>> > prisoner, requiring similar services, does a state government
>> > or the Feds spend more running its own facility or contracting
>> > out?
>> No, the economics of it is not the key question.
>>
>> The key question is "what are the societal effects of incarcerating
>> people for profit?"
>
>Why?
>
>If the 8.1% of US prisoners incarcerated in for-profit facilities
>were transferred to space operated on a "not for profit" basis,
>the employees of that system would receive the economic
>benefit. When it is in the form of a public employee's salary
>& benefit package, is it somehow cleaner and purer?

Will the public employees lobby Congress and offer bribes to get more
convicts?

>I'd recommend reading some Buchanan and Tullock.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
>
>Incarcerating people for things that should not be considered
>crimes strained our systems long before private corrections
>facilities were authorized.

Doesn't mean that private prisons don't make it worse.

On 2021-05-03 9:12 p.m., Kevrob wrote:
> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 7:58:21 AM UTC-4, Jaimie Vandenbergh
> wrote:
>> On 3 May 2021 at 01:48:32 BST, "Kevrob" <kev...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd figure the key question should be, for the same level of
>>> prisoner, requiring similar services, does a state government or
>>> the Feds spend more running its own facility or contracting out?
>> No, the economics of it is not the key question.
>>
>> The key question is "what are the societal effects of
>> incarcerating people for profit?"
>
> Why?
>
> If the 8.1% of US prisoners incarcerated in for-profit facilities
> were transferred to space operated on a "not for profit" basis, the
> employees of that system would receive the economic benefit.

No they wouldn't. They wouldn't be paid more for more prisoners to
oversee. The public system might (and probably should) hire more
employees of the system to handle the increased demand, but the already
existing guards and administrators wouldn't be making any more money.

> Ciavarella pleaded guilty on February 13, 2009, pursuant to a plea
> agreement, to federal charges of honest services fraud, wire fraud
> and tax evasion in connection with receiving $2.6 million in
> kickbacks from Robert Powell and Robert Mericle, the co-owner and
> builder respectively, of two private, for-profit juvenile facilities
> of PA Child Care. In exchange for these kickbacks, Ciavarella
> sentenced children to extended stays in juvenile detention for
> offenses as minimal as mocking a principal on Myspace, trespassing in
> a vacant building, and shoplifting DVDs from Wal-mart.

On 5/4/2021 5:06 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 7:58:21 AM UTC-4, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> If the 8.1% of US prisoners incarcerated in for-profit facilities
>> were transferred to space operated on a "not for profit" basis,
>> the employees of that system would receive the economic
>> benefit. When it is in the form of a public employee's salary
>> & benefit package, is it somehow cleaner and purer?
> Will the public employees lobby Congress and offer bribes to get more
> convicts?
>

Probably part of the AFGE lobbying.

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 6:06:20 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 3 May 2021 20:12:34 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 7:58:21 AM UTC-4, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> >> On 3 May 2021 at 01:48:32 BST, "Kevrob" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'd figure the key question should be, for the same level of
> >> > prisoner, requiring similar services, does a state government
> >> > or the Feds spend more running its own facility or contracting
> >> > out?
> >> No, the economics of it is not the key question.
> >>
> >> The key question is "what are the societal effects of incarcerating
> >> people for profit?"
> >
> >Why?
> >
> >If the 8.1% of US prisoners incarcerated in for-profit facilities
> >were transferred to space operated on a "not for profit" basis,
> >the employees of that system would receive the economic
> >benefit. When it is in the form of a public employee's salary
> >& benefit package, is it somehow cleaner and purer?
> Will the public employees lobby Congress and offer bribes to get more
> convicts?

Historically, that's the way they lean.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article246020620.html

Pt.

Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:c81bc154-947e-4a18-ad16-102c4b505f3en@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 7:58:21 AM UTC-4, Jaimie Vandenbergh
> wrote:
>> On 3 May 2021 at 01:48:32 BST, "Kevrob" <kev...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I'd figure the key question should be, for the same level of
>> > prisoner, requiring similar services, does a state government
>> > or the Feds spend more running its own facility or
>> > contracting out?
>> No, the economics of it is not the key question.
>>
>> The key question is "what are the societal effects of
>> incarcerating people for profit?"
>
> Why?
>
> If the 8.1% of US prisoners incarcerated in for-profit
> facilities were transferred to space operated on a "not for
> profit" basis, the employees of that system would receive the
> economic benefit. When it is in the form of a public employee's
> salary & benefit package, is it somehow cleaner and purer?
>
> I'd recommend reading some Buchanan and Tullock.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
>
> Incarcerating people for things that should not be considered
> crimes strained our systems long before private corrections
> facilities were authorized.
>
But the trend has increased with for profit prisons. Not to mention
outright bribing judges to incarcerate people who have not done
anything to warrant it. Judges *have* gone to prison for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On 2021-05-04 2:17 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in
> news:c81bc154-947e-4a18-ad16-102c4b505f3en@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 7:58:21 AM UTC-4, Jaimie Vandenbergh
>> wrote:
>>> On 3 May 2021 at 01:48:32 BST, "Kevrob" <kev...@my-deja.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd figure the key question should be, for the same level of
>>>> prisoner, requiring similar services, does a state government
>>>> or the Feds spend more running its own facility or
>>>> contracting out?
>>> No, the economics of it is not the key question.
>>>
>>> The key question is "what are the societal effects of
>>> incarcerating people for profit?"
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> If the 8.1% of US prisoners incarcerated in for-profit
>> facilities were transferred to space operated on a "not for
>> profit" basis, the employees of that system would receive the
>> economic benefit. When it is in the form of a public employee's
>> salary & benefit package, is it somehow cleaner and purer?
>>
>> I'd recommend reading some Buchanan and Tullock.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
>>
>> Incarcerating people for things that should not be considered
>> crimes strained our systems long before private corrections
>> facilities were authorized.
>>
> But the trend has increased with for profit prisons. Not to mention
> outright bribing judges to incarcerate people who have not done
> anything to warrant it. Judges *have* gone to prison for it.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
>

What? Terry? Trust Wikipedia?