Toews hanging out with a bad Private Prison crowd...

[g_bambino]

[E]ven without those abuses they ought to be able to run prisons far cheaper than the government does.

Why?

[Guest Manny]

As for the conspiracy theories about law and order bills designed to put people in prison for profit. Please. Take off the tinfoil hats, huh? This isn't Alabama.

It's not necessarily saying the bills are designed to put people in prison for profit. When there is a potential for profit, the motivation is there. Therefore the state has an obligation, in the interest of all citizens including prisoners to ensure that the legal system or prison system cannot be exploited. It cannot be made financially attractive. It's a cost we must bear with taxpayers money, and a a profit-neutral administration.

Contrast this with privatized for-profit systems, in which prison corporations invite shareholders to invest. When the value of stock depends on number of prisoners, or how long prisoners are held in the facility there is always motivation.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Manny

[eyeball]

To whom? It seems the profits would go only to the company or companies running the prisons. Why, then, would the government be motivated to let private businesses build and/or run jails to make them profitable?

People in the government who make things happen for business could look forward to a high paying position in the industry they help create.

Anyway, there's no evidence the government actually is seriously considering privatising prisions; "may consider" doesn't indicate serious commitment.

[ed.: +]

Whatever evidence and especially any the government provides about what it is or isn't considering is suspect at best, but in this case I wouldn't put it past them at all.

Edited July 16, 2012 by eyeball

[madmax]

Fact is that prisons are ridiculously expensive to run, at least those run by the government. I'm not saying there haven't been abuses in the private prison business, but even without those abuses they ought to be able to run prisons far cheaper than the government does.

They ought to, but they don't....They seem to have a very sketchy track record.

Arizona's private prisons are not cost-effective for taxpayers and are more difficult to monitor than state prisons, according to a new report by a prison watchdog group that is calling for a moratorium on any new private prisons in the state.

The report examined the five prisons that have contracts to house Arizona prisoners and six private prisons that house federal detainees or inmates from other states, including California and Hawaii.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/02/15/20120215arizona-private-prisons-slammed-by-report.html#ixzz20nzO5PB4

And then this in the UK..

-------------------------------------

Not all private prisons in the United Kingdom have been successful. Ashfield Prison opened in 1999 and was the first private prison in the UK to house young offenders. The prison was soon mired in controversy after repeated riots and reports of poor management. Conditions at the prison became so bad in 2003 that the Youth Justice Board withdrew prisoners from Ashfield, and threatened to recommend that the prison should be taken over by the public sector

And then this might be a benefit.. the tendering process put it back another prison back into the control of the crown...

------------------------------------

Buckley Hall Prison was originally opened as a privately managed prison in 1994, but after a competitive tendering process in 2000, management of the prison was transferred to Her Majesty's Prison Service

and in the states more screwups for profit.

-----------------------------

Industry-funded studies often conclude that states can save money by using private prisons. However, state-funded studies have found that private prisons keep only low-cost inmates and send others back to state-run prisons.[13]

Others have suggested that cost savings come at the expense of security. In the wake of the escape of three murderers from the minimum/medium security Kingman Prison, Arizona operated by Management and Training Corporation (MTC) attorney general and gubernatorial candidate Terry Goddard said "I believe a big part of our problem is that the very violent inmates, like the three that escaped, ended up getting reclassified [as a lower risk] quickly and sent to private prisons that were just not up to the job."[14]The private prison had inadequate patrols and prisoner movement, excessive false alarms, a lax culture, and inconsistencies in visitor screening procedures.[15]

And Private Prisons play the shell game ....

--------------------------------------------

A study by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics found that the cost-savings promised by private prisons “have simply not materialized.”[22] Some research has concluded that for-profit prisons cost more than public prisons.[23] Furthermore, cost estimates from privatization advocates may be misleading, because private facilities often refuse to accept inmates that cost the most to house. A 2001 study concluded that a pattern of sending less expensive inmates to privately-run facilities artificially inflated cost savings.[24] A 2005 study found that Arizona’s public facilities were seven times more likely to house violent offenders and three times more likely to house those convicted of more serious offenses

I will end it that the most involved study proved inconclusive of cost savings for Private Prisions.

garbage in , garbage out.

The winners would appear to be Corporate Prisons.

[cybercoma]

Fact is that prisons are ridiculously expensive to run, at least those run by the government. I'm not saying there haven't been abuses in the private prison business, but even without those abuses they ought to be able to run prisons far cheaper than the government does.

As for the conspiracy theories about law and order bills designed to put people in prison for profit. Please. Take off the tinfoil hats, huh? This isn't Alabama.

This isn't Texas, as Texas has reversed a number of the exact same laws Harper is trying to bring in because it cost them more. The omnibus crime bills do not make any sense, unless you either believe the BS about massive amounts of criminal activity that nobody knows about or they're trying to put more people in jail to make prisons more profitable to private entities and more costly for the government to run. When this govt doles out the contracts in the usual manner, without competition or oversight, you can be sure someone's going to be getting the kickbacks and let's not forget the cushy positions that will be open to them in the "private" sector after they leave politics.

[cybercoma]

What are conditions going to be like in prisons where they cut staff and other expenses as much as possible to turn the largest possible profit. They'll be so abysmal that if someone's not a lifetime criminal when they go in, they'll be so messed up when they come out that they probably will turn to a life of crime because they'll no longer be able to function in society.

[punked]

What are conditions going to be like in prisons where they cut staff and other expenses as much as possible to turn the largest possible profit. They'll be so abysmal that if someone's not a lifetime criminal when they go in, they'll be so messed up when they come out that they probably will turn to a life of crime because they'll no longer be able to function in society.

Whatever that would be a great design for a Private Prison. You need to fill the jail cells so better to create criminals then reform them.

[bleeding heart]

Private prisons might save some money for the tax payer. My concern would be oversight, something this government doesn't seem big on.

That's why certain things shouldn't be privatized. The notion that it always leads to more "freedom" is a platitude, and not always the case.

What kind of slave labour? Do you really think private prisons will be able to hire out inmates or force them to work in salt mines? This is not NAZI Germany or the Gulag.

No, such a thing simply couldn't happen in the Enlightened democracies:

Human rights organizations, as well as political and social ones, are condemning what they are calling a new form of inhumane exploitation in the United States, where they say a prison population of up to 2 million - mostly Black and Hispanic - are working for various industries for a pittance. For the tycoons who have invested in the prison industry, it has been like finding a pot of gold. They don't have to worry about strikes or paying unemployment insurance, vacations or comp time. All of their workers are full-time, and never arrive late or are absent because of family problems; moreover, if they don't like the pay of 25 cents an hour and refuse to work, they are locked up in isolation cells.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8289

A few months later, Eric Schlosser wrote an article published in Atlantic Monthly in December 1998 stating that "The 'prison-industrial complex' (PIC) is not only a set of interest groups and institutions; it is also a state of mind. The lure of big money is corrupting the nation's criminal-justice system, replacing notions of safety and public service with a drive for higher profits. The eagerness of elected officials to pass tough-on-crime legislation combined with their unwillingness to disclose the external and social costs of these laws has encouraged all sorts of financial improprieties."

.....

The Prison-Industrial Complex is one of the most rapidly growing multimillion-dollar industries in the United States. Incarceration feeds copious big businesses, such as companies-providers of furniture, transportation, food, clothes and medical services, construction and communication firms, etc. All of these parties have a great interest in the expansion of the PIC since their development and prosperity directly depends on the number of inmates: just like any other industry needs more and more raw materials, the PIC requires more and more prisoners.[26]

Private businesses also benefit from the exploitation of the free prison labor. The prison mechanisms remove unexploitable labor, or so-called underclass, from society and redefine it as highly exploitable cheap labor.[27] Many scholars have argued that the trend of hiring out prisoners is a continuation of the slavery tradition. Prisoners perform a great array of jobs and are exploited in the following ways: minimal payments, no insurances, no strikes, all workers are full-time and never arrive late. Cynthia Young states that prison labor is employers paradise.[28] Because of the high profits involved, new businesses involving the import and export of prisoners were developed. Also the prison industry enables to close the gap between free and coerced labor.[29] Prison labor can soon deprive the free labor of jobs in a number of sectors, since the organized labor turns out to be uncompetitive comparing to the prison counterpart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_complex

Edited July 16, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

It's not necessarily saying the bills are designed to put people in prison for profit. When there is a potential for profit, the motivation is there. Therefore the state has an obligation, in the interest of all citizens including prisoners to ensure that the legal system or prison system cannot be exploited. It cannot be made financially attractive. It's a cost we must bear with taxpayers money, and a a profit-neutral administration.

Contrast this with privatized for-profit systems, in which prison corporations invite shareholders to invest. When the value of stock depends on number of prisoners, or how long prisoners are held in the facility there is always motivation.

Exactly. tThe motivating factor is not to decrease crime; quite the opposite. In terms of criminal justice, potential rehabilitation, reducing re-offense, and reducing crime in general...it's literally perverse.

[g_bambino]

People in the government who make things happen for business could look forward to a high paying position in the industry they help create.

Possibly. But, it doesn't seem as though that would generate enough impetus to get legislation passed through parliament; i.e. it's unlikely there's enough available positions to award to everyone needed to get a law passed.

[WWWTT]

As a society, we tend to be focused on the first examples in the dyads, considering them worse and more worthy of millions in resources to fight than the latter examples. However, it is those latter examples that create the greatest impact on society.

This is a false statement.

If you only read the Toronto Sun then you could be right?

But I believe white collar crime is adequately reported.The problem is is that the conservatives give a rats ass about punishing their fundraisers and organizers.

Never hear the conservatives talk about "unreported" white collar crime either.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Why?

Better question whould be how?

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

This is a false statement.

If you only read the Toronto Sun then you could be right?

But I believe white collar crime is adequately reported.The problem is is that the conservatives give a rats ass about punishing their fundraisers and organizers.

Never hear the conservatives talk about "unreported" white collar crime either.

WWWTT

I think you just said my statement was false, only to go on and agree with me in a circuitous way.

[jacee]

Wilber, on 16 July 2012 - 06:29 AM, said: Private prisons might save some money for the tax payer. My concern would be oversight, something this government doesn't seem big on.

There won't be any savings for taxpayers. Any 'cost savings' they can find by warehousing people will get passed on to investors as profit. Increased crime and incarceration as a result of warehousing people will be increased cost to the public, and increased profit for investors.

This definitely isn't about reducing costs to the taxpayer.

Our costs will go up and be skimmed off as profit.

[Guest Manny]

Those employees of the prison corporation are no longer government employees. The corporation charges the government for its services. The rules concerning transfer payments are often different when it comes to charging for services, vs paying employee salaries.

[g_bambino]

Better question whould be how?

No.

[Wild Bill]

I just can't believe how blind people can be! Thank Heavens for some of the posters in this thread and on MLW as a whole!

Toews and his boss Harper are plotting to turn our prison system over to American companies, so that those companies can get rich on Canadian tax money!

Why would they, some might ask? Curse you for being a doubter! They are doing it for the sheer joy of evil!

If prisons then become hotbeds of abuse of prisoners, why, so much the better! Everyone knows that ALL MPs in Harper's government are evangelical Christians! Everyone also knows that evangelical Christians believe that all prisoners should be flogged daily, in order to save their souls!

Only Liberal and especially NDP supporters would not be so evilly inclined! That is a given fact of the known Universe!

I'm really surprised that some still don't seem to have seen this...

[Guest Manny]

Wild Bill, it's time for your medication...

[madmax]

Toews and his boss Harper are plotting to turn our prison system over to American companies, so that those companies can get rich on Canadian tax money!

Yes

[nimiru]

I'm not in favour of privatized prisons but how does one make prisons profitable?

[nimiru]

Do you think that Cheney and his ideas are the way to go. Since when does a prison system need or should be a profit making endeavor. It only opens it up for another form of abuse. Look south to see what can and will go wrong and maybe that will finally open your eyes if nothing else helps. You conservatives seem to think that everything comes down to the almighty buck and that's what's wrong with your philosophy and that's the reason we have to get Harper and his minions the hell out of Ottawa and someone with some sense in power. Let me see if I get you, if prisons are profitable then the more people we imprison the more money we make. That sounds STUPID. Do we repeal human rights at the prison doors once they are privatized. When do you think it will be important to consider peoples basic human rights as opposed to the need to make a dollar? Some how I think you won't. Do we put the prisons on the stock market too so everyone can get in on it? If profits are down we can cut back on medical care and meals etc. The possibilities are endless and ripe for abuse. You seem to be a true capitalist tried and true. Anyone who takes offense to this bring on. Just look at the States they have 5% of the worlds population and yet they hold 25% of the worlds inmates. Money in the bank. Good going boys!!!!

Edited August 5, 2012 by nimiru

[PIK]

What is really sad is the prisons we have now. Funny how the left that just loves the poor misunderstood thug, has no problem with these people living in brutal conditions in our 100 year old jails. No wonder people come out more screwed up, then when they went in.

[bleeding heart]

What is really sad is the prisons we have now. Funny how the left that just loves the poor misunderstood thug, has no problem with these people living in brutal conditions in our 100 year old jails. No wonder people come out more screwed up, then when they went in.

So...the Cnservatives want to build new prisons because they're concerned about the well-being of the inmates?

What has stopped them from making these feelings public, then?

I thought they wanted to build more prisons to house all the people who are never caught because of the high rate of unreported crime. (If that sounds contradictory, it is...but I'm not the one making the claimns, and then offering the lunatic prescriptions for these claims.)

[Keepitsimple]

People might want to read a Lorrie Goldstein column to get a perspective on things. I'd like to post the entire article but it's against the forum ruls - so here's a few excerpts:

Every year, when StatsCan produces these numbers, opponents of Harper’s anti-crime agenda argue the ongoing drop in crime rates proves there’s no need for it. That the numbers show Canada’s longstanding “rehabilitative” approach has worked.

But that’s not what the numbers show. To claim they do confuses correlation and causation.

In other words, just because two things happen simultaneously, doesn’t necessarily mean one caused the other. Here’s why.

Crime rates started falling not just in Canada, but all over North America, in the early 1990s.

It happened both in jurisdictions that were “tough” and “soft” on crime.

While much Canadian commentary insists our softer approach to crime is responsible for the drop in our crime rate post-1990, in the U.S., that approach is widely blamed for the huge spike in crime that started in the 1960s and continued until the early 1990s.

As Levitt and Dubner write: “During the first half of the twentieth century, the incidence of violent crime in the United States was, for the most part, fairly steady. But in the early 1960s, it began to climb. In retrospect, it is clear that one of the major factors pushing this trend (which also occurred in Canada) was a more lenient justice system. Conviction rates declined in the 1960s and criminals who were convicted received shorter sentences … Because criminals respond to incentives as readily as anyone, the result was a surge in crime.”

By contrast, they note, when considering factors that led to lower crime rates in the U.S. post-1990, beyond liberalized abortion laws, “The evidence linking punishment with lower crime rates is very strong. Harsh prison terms have been shown to act as both deterrent (for the would-be criminal on the street) and prophylactic (for the would-be criminal who is already locked up).”

Point is, regardless of what their critics in Canada insist about the Conservatives’ anti-crime agenda, there is a huge body of research in the U.S. that has concluded longer prison terms reduce crime.

As Thomas Sowell explains in The Vision of the Anointed about this common mistake of confusing causation and correlation when dealing with statistics: “When there is a substantial correlation between A and B, this might mean that: (1) A causes B (2) B causes A (3) Both A and B are the results of C, or … (4) It is a coincidence.

Words to live by.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/27/lies-damned-lies-statistics

[bleeding heart]

I appreciate what appears to be a sincere argument on the part of the author's article; but the indisputable fact remains that there is nothing about the figures cited that suggest it is the new gold standard. Arguments from both sides, by reputable authors using conventional approaches to study, have come up with contradictory results.

Over and over and over.

This is why the debate still rages on, after decades.

It's certainly not some argument between "hug-a-thug" ideological liberals versus hard-nosed, practical conservatives. On the contrary, heated ideological exchanges aside, both camps have often made use of strong, non-partisan studies and arguments to bolster their respective views.

(Incidentally, US crime officials have written an open letter to Harper about abandoning his "tough on drugs" policy...they claim it's an utter failure, in fact counterproductive...and they should know!)

So since the facts, as we know them, seem so plainly contradictory, I advocate what I would call a "conservative" approach: do not make radical changes to the incarceration system, until we have this figured out.

So...the liberals are being "conservative"...and the conservatives are being....radical. (I"m talking small "l" liberals, and both small and big "c"/"C" conservatives.

Edited August 9, 2012 by bleeding heart