It creates an industry of private businesses that have but one motive: a profit motive.
They are therefor motivated to do everything they can to increase incarceration rates to create demand for their services of imprisonment. This article illustrates that pretty clearly. It also creates situations like the corrupt judge/private prison kickback scheme in Pennsylvania recently.(1)
We don't need profit-driven companies who profit from increased rates of incarceration, they have no reason to really rehabilitate people - they want them back in the system ASAP.
This problem is not limited to the private prison business. In California, for example, the prison guard union is similarly motivated by profits to increase incarceration rates.
In fact, organizations like prison guard unions have stronger motives than multiple private prison corporations. A non-monopolistic prison corporation could easily let their competitors waste money on lobbying and reap the benefits, so any prison corp with small market share has no motive to lobby. The prison guard union reaps all the benefits since they have 100% market share.
> This problem is not limited to the private prison business. In California, for example, the prison guard union is similarly motivated by profits to increase incarceration rates.
I happen to think that you're both right. I'd rather not see union-owned or for-profit private prisons due and I'm not convinced that we really have to choose one or the other.
I love how the Hacker News community can spend most of its time obsessed with starting businesses and yet still find time to decry the profit motive as evil.
The profit motive is a powerful incentive, but it is amoral. It can lead to both good and evil effects.
I see nothing unreasonable about wanting to make sure that the profit motive is aligned with out best interests. Conveniently, HN has an article that addresses that very subject:
> We don't need profit-driven companies who profit from increased rates of incarceration, ...
Agreed. But perhaps the problem is not with the privitization generally, but the contract the company operates under. It appears to provide the wrong incentives.
> ... they have no reason to really rehabilitate people - they want them back in the system ASAP.
I suppose so. But then has any prison system, anywhere, had significant success with rehabilitation? Is it even possible, for all but a small fraction of prisoners? (Not rhetorical questions.)
Right. Change the incentives so they get money if the prisoners are healthy on discharge, and also so that they get money for non-recividism (e.g. each prisoner not rearrested gives the prison some bonus).
They are therefor motivated to do everything they can to increase incarceration rates to create demand for their services of imprisonment. This article illustrates that pretty clearly. It also creates situations like the corrupt judge/private prison kickback scheme in Pennsylvania recently.(1)
We don't need profit-driven companies who profit from increased rates of incarceration, they have no reason to really rehabilitate people - they want them back in the system ASAP.
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html?_r=2&h...