New Hampshire House Votes To Prohibit Private Prisons

Muddy Creek said:

There's no rehabilitation going on in prisons now. They lack funds to do it, is the excuse right before the state privatizes and then pays the private corporations three times the amount the state was paying to actually rehabilitate prisoners before the cutbacks.

Click to expand...

There is no rehabilitation.... If rehabilitation was the focus than why the hell do they give people 100 years in prison or 500 years in prison?

Prison is a punishment - not a rehabilitation program.

Besides, half the fools in prison are there for stupid reasons like drugs or were wrongfully convicted in the first place. So I don't understand how one "rehabilitates" an individual whos only crime is smoking/selling weed considering they're not criminals in the first place...

The only people who have a chance at "rehabilitation" are young people (or first timers), however young people are only "rehabilitated" because prison is a "scared straight" place/program and they learn the risk of reward of a crime is not worth the time.

poweRob said:

Major kudos to the New Hampshire House. Hopefully this will push through the rest of the state government and then go viral to other states.

House votes to prohibit prison privatization, bill moves to Senate for review

The House on Thursday voted to forbid the executive branch from privatizing the state prison system, saying that to do so would shirk the state’s constitutional responsibility to rehabilitate inmates.

The 197-136 roll call by the Democratic -controlled House sent House Bill 443 to the Senate, where Republicans hold a slim, 13-11 majority and the bill’s fate is uncertain, at best.​

Click to expand...

I never heard much from the pro-side on this issue.

What are the supposed benefits besides immediate cost savings?

PS Rob, how do you feel about the effect prison guard unions in California had on issues like three strikes, strict sentencing guidelines, and the decriminalization of soft drugs? Honestly many of the same issues that have been made about private prisons seem to often apply to strong public unions

Mr.Nick said:

I agree with you but prison is not a "rehabilitation center" it's punishment. If it wasn't people wouldn't use language like "you need to pay your debt to society."

Click to expand...

That is what it is today, mostly just punishment, and it is not working. "Prisons" should be places where criminals get the education, training and counseling to become good productive citizens when they are released.

Hard Truth said:

That is what it is today, mostly just punishment, and it is not working. "Prisons" should be places where criminals get the education, training and counseling to become good productive citizens when they are released.

Click to expand...

I agree with you but you cant force someone to become educated or even change their ways - they have to make that decision for themselves...

It's up to the individual to change (or rehabilitate) not the state/fed...

There is nothing the state/fed can do to change someone.

I think the biggest problem is that once a person spends 10-15+ years in prison they become "institutionalized" and are beyond "rehabilitation."

Also, some people are just way beyond repair and they belong locked away for life...

Dr. Chuckles said:

.....PS Rob, how do you feel about the effect prison guard unions in California had on issues like three strikes, strict sentencing guidelines, and the decriminalization of soft drugs? Honestly many of the same issues that have been made about private prisons seem to often apply to strong public unions

Click to expand...

I don't support taking away union's right to organize and present their views to legislators. We need politicians with the guts and integrity to prioritize the public interest over that of that one interest group. That requires informed voters who support politicians willing and able to do the right thing instead of pimping themselves out for a law enforcement endorsement.

Mr.Nick said:

I agree with you but you cant force someone to become educated or even change their ways - they have to make that decision for themselves...

It's up to the individual to change (or rehabilitate) not the state/fed...

There is nothing the state/fed can do to change someone.

I think the biggest problem is that once a person spends 10-15+ years in prison they become "institutionalized" and are beyond "rehabilitation."

Also, some people are just way beyond repair and they belong locked away for life...

Click to expand...

I disagree, people can be made to change, it just takes significant time and effort. These efforts will take an investment, but it is one that will pay off in the future. Unfortunately, politicians don't care about the long-term since it doesn't help them get re-elected in two years. The public needs to create the pressure for this change. Our society has never made a full on commitment to rehabilitation because too many people are only interested in punishing criminals and don't consider what happens when they are released. Punishment should be a means to an end to the extent it is proven effective, punishment should not be an end to itself.

The most important thing is to make sure that opportunities for education, training, work opportunities and counseling are available to all prisoners. That is not the current situation. We can also create powerful incentives for prisoners to take advantage of these opportunities such as improved living conditions or earlier release. We should also improve the supervision and assistance for released prisoners.

My observation is that many convicts over 40 or so are tired of the criminal/prisoner life and are ready for a change. The handful that aren't may need more intensive mental health care to deal with their problems. Those that need to be incarcerated for public saftey should still be made as productive and harmless to other prisoners and guards as possible, with more of a mental hospital type of care than the brutality of prisons.

Another thing that would help is to change the drug laws so that ex-cons don't get sent back to prison just because they smoked a joint while on probation.

Dr. Chuckles said:

I never heard much from the pro-side on this issue.

What are the supposed benefits besides immediate cost savings?

PS Rob, how do you feel about the effect prison guard unions in California had on issues like three strikes, strict sentencing guidelines, and the decriminalization of soft drugs? Honestly many of the same issues that have been made about private prisons seem to often apply to strong public unions

Click to expand...

I honestly would have a hard time commenting on prision guard unions' effect on policy. I don't know much about their stances and whatnot. For myself, I'm against three strikes very much so and harsh punishments on pot and such.

Thing is, with private prisons we still tax the public to pay for it and they throw in a profit margin on top of it all which always needs to grow.

poweRob said:

I honestly would have a hard time commenting on prision guard unions' effect on policy. I don't know much about their stances and whatnot. For myself, I'm against three strikes very much so and harsh punishments on pot and such.

Thing is, with private prisons we still tax the public to pay for it and they throw in a profit margin on top of it all which always needs to grow.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm generally against prison privitization. I was just interesting hearing if there was a more in depth argument for it beyond citing immediate cost savings.

The reason I asked about public sector unions, is that I think they function differently than their cousins in the private sector, and the CCPOA has done many of the same things people are citing here as the potential dangers of privitization.

Which makes sense, being that both have financial interest in maintaining a high number of incarcerations

Hard Truth said:

I don't support taking away union's right to organize and present their views to legislators. We need politicians with the guts and integrity to prioritize the public interest over that of that one interest group. That requires informed voters who support politicians willing and able to do the right thing instead of pimping themselves out for a law enforcement endorsement.

Click to expand...

I generally don't have issues with unions. But its hard to argue that entities like the ccpoa should be aloud to function as they have in the recent past

I am leery of something that would come between me and the justice system when I would be at my most vulnerable place in society.

Northern Light said:

Thank god there is sense somewhere in this country. Incarceration should not be about profit. If the State wants to put so many people in jail for victimless crimes, then it can pay for it; and if it can't afford it, then it's time to review some of those unnecessary laws.

Keeping the prison system state run keeps the laws sane.

Click to expand...

The State doesn't pay for it, the people they tax pays for it. Typical solution would be to increase taxes to cover such costs or an alternative source of tax. I doubt it will become unaffordable anytime soon so they can review such laws.

apdst said:

If selling weed is illegal, then it's the fault of the people breaking the law that they are locked up.

Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.

It's funny to hear "It's the law of the land", Libbos cry about criminals getting locked up.

Click to expand...

It's funny when you talk about the law of the land but you don't think the same way about laws you disagree with.

Good call.

Creating out of thin air a whole industry interested in expansion of incarceration is a terrible idea, even if it saves a buck here and there.

We put the State, with it coercive force and punitive methods in charge of policing, courts and prisons for a reason.

As a rule of thumb, the government should deal with what we want less of: crime, foerign aggression, safety violations, etc
The market, with its creativity and resilient growth should do what we want more of: goods and services provided and accepted voluntarily.

PeteEU said:

Because of profit. These prisons get money per prisoner, not per rehabilitative prisoner. Add to that corrupt courts and you have a system that is very bad. There have been several cases of American judges working together with the private prison system to generate profit for both of them. There was a case not long ago, where judge worked with a juvenile dention center and sent kids there on long sentences for minor charges and even innocent kids.



Because it is a 10s of billion dollar industry....

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the case in pa? I can't think of many other example. Let alone enough to present it as some major issue, like you do above

Cyrylek said:

Good call.

Creating out of thin air a whole industry interested in expansion of incarceration is a terrible idea, even if it saves a buck here and there.

We put the State, with it coercive force and punitive methods in charge of policing, courts and prisons for a reason.

As a rule of thumb, the government should deal with what we want less of: crime, foerign aggression, safety violations, etc
The market, with its creativity and resilient growth should do what we want more of: goods and services provided and accepted voluntarily.

Click to expand...

But how can private prisons expand unless crimes are committed and government judges provides sentences? It's not up to private prisons to decide how many arrive at their gates, the length of the sentences, parole times, etc.

What if...? said:

Loss of freedom is punishment enough.

Prison should be as much like life in the outside world as possible without the liberty and luxuries.

Putting people in a wholly unnatural environment for years ruins most of them. Spending five consecutive hears in prison results in an 85% recidivism rate, regardless of the original offense. People simply adapt to the unnatural system and can't reassimilate.

And a couple months won't fix it.

Click to expand...

I generally think that you take a reasonable approach to most issues, What if.., however, not so much on this point. A loss of freedom is NOT merely enough for some crimes, although, I'll grant you that lessor, victimless crimes would garner that sentiment. Violent crimes, crimes where material harm (which all and I mean ALL laws should be based on) has taken place require a more severe punitive measure, IMO. Society demands it, frankly, and so they should. Jamesrage is correct. Crime is punishable, and the punishment should fit the crime. Sounds easy enough, you'd think, but clearly we have a lot of disagreement about what punishment we should dole out for what crimes. Someone is Colorado {As an example) breaking into a home and stealing a TV shouldn't receive more time as that of someone raping a child, IMO, but alas, that seems to be the way it is there. I don't want violent criminals rehabilitated. I want them punished, and very hard! No TV, a cold bed, a toilet, and three meals a day. During the day I want them doing hard labor. I want it so BAD that any thought of committing the same offense when they get out is the last thing on their minds. I certainly do NOT want them to feel as though if they do it again, all they'll have to endure is a nice warm comfy bed, Sat TV, steak dinner, and smokes. Sorry, I don't see it that way. The criminal mind is rarely rehabilitable, and rehabilitation is only successful statistically if the criminal is younger between the ages of 18 to 25. Older criminals have shown to be less successful in rehabilitation programs, and violent criminals are almost statistically sure to re-commit after being released. Plus, how the hell does someone know if someone has been rehabilitated anyway?

There is some data that shows success, so I'll grant you that, but the devil is in the details. The success rates depend greatly on the age of the offender, and amount of time spent rehabilitating, and the age at which they are released. The age at which the crime was committed, the term spent in confinement, and the type of crime, tends to point to a predictable pattern of recidivism. To me this is one of those topics that really needs a national referendum. The pinheaded psychologists, and researchers and do-gooders have been experimenting with crime and punishment far to long, IMO. We as a society not only have the right to set these standard, we are obligated to. We are also responsible for the consequences, however positive, and or negative they come to be reconciled.


Tim-

Wiseone said:

It's funny when you talk about the law of the land but you don't think the same way about laws you disagree with.

Click to expand...

Same could be said for you. Yes?

Grant said:

But how can private prisons expand unless crimes are committed and government judges provides sentences? It's not up to private prisons to decide how many arrive at their gates, the length of the sentences, parole times, etc.

Click to expand...

well, the CCPOA is just a prison guard lobby. But through lobbying they were able to get legislation passed that enforced harsher minimum sentencing guidelines, prevent the decriminalization of marijuana, and even shape the process their behavior was reviewed under

apdst said:

I don't disagree, which is why I never suggested that prisons should be privatized.

Click to expand...

I never said you did. You asked why no one was getting rehabilitated. It's because it's for profit.

Grant said:

But how can private prisons expand unless crimes are committed and government judges provides sentences? It's not up to private prisons to decide how many arrive at their gates, the length of the sentences, parole times, etc.

Click to expand...

One simple example: The Idiotic War on (some) Drugs. Do you think a private company running prisons would not lobby aggressively against decriminalization that would empty a third of its cells?

Cyrylek said:

One simple example: The Idiotic War on (some) Drugs. Do you think a private company running prisons would not lobby aggressively against decriminalization that would empty a third of its cells?

Click to expand...

There were plenty of laws against drugs long before privately run prisons came about,

Grant said:

There were plenty of laws against drugs long before privately run prisons came about,

Click to expand...

Of course. I'm just saying: do not create an additional new problem where the old problems are quite enough.

Whenever possible, we should keep business and government separate, lest they corrupt each other. The cop cannot be a business partner, for the obvious reasons.

Cyrylek said:

Of course. I'm just saying: do not create an additional new problem where the old problems are quite enough.

Whenever possible, we should keep business and government separate, lest they corrupt each other. The cop cannot be a business partner, for the obvious reasons.

Click to expand...

But so far I'm not aware of any additional problems. Concerns certainly, and they might well be justified.

But in this instance is the government interfering in what should be private business or is private business interfering with public business? We do know that their has been corruption in the prison system since day one but with the government running the show, and the bureaucracy fully entrenched, I'm not sure it isn't time to take another look at it.

At least they shouldn't make them illegal. On the surface that seems to be a pro union stance rather than one done for altruistic reasons.

Grant said:

But in this instance is the government interfering in what should be private business or is private business interfering with public business? .

Click to expand...

It is an instance of the government abandoning its proper and indispensible functions - and inviting "private" corruption.

There's no such thing as a natural incarceration market. The justice system, warts and all, cannot be privatized, by definition, as a whole or in parts.

This is a contentious issue among libertarians. Suffice to say, this is probably one single area where I had disagreed strongly with the man I've voted for in November - Gary Johnson. For my money, private prisons is nonsense - just like competing private courts, police forces or drug safety adminstrations.

Grant said:

On the surface that seems to be a pro union stance rather than one done for altruistic reasons.

Click to expand...

Hey, politicians making a right choice for all the wrong reasons is the very definition of reasonable hope.

Muddy Creek said:

I never said you did. You asked why no one was getting rehabilitated. It's because it's for profit.

Click to expand...

Then, why do you keep trying to convince me that privatized prisons are a bad idea? I already agree that it's a bad idea. So why keep harping on it?