Report: Business is booming for private prisons


Tonington
Avatar
#1
--
Private prison companies have helped fuel government policies which lead to an increase in prison population and boost their profits, according to a recent report.

The private prison population has grown 353.7 percent in the past 15 years, according to a -- by the Justice Policy Institute. Major private prison companies have an incentive to encourage policies which keep that number on the rise.

"Steady increases in the number of people in private prisons, especially those cominPrivg from federally contracted beds, translate into increased revenues for private prison companies," the report says.

"Since private prison companies are in the business to make money, policies that maintain or increase incarceration boost their revenues; from a business perspective, the economic and social costs of mass incarceration are 'externalities' that aren't figured into their corporate bottom line," it says.

Some of the biggest names in the private prison industry have given $835,514 to federal candidates since 2000 and a stunning $6,092,331 to state politicians in the last five elections cycles, according to data in the report.
Some other figures to note. Since 2000, the number of prisoners held in private federal facilities is up 120%, the number held in private state facilities is up by 33%, while the total number of prisoners, in all types of facilities is up only 16%. Since 1997, corrections spending is up 72%.

The breakdown for political contributions is 59.1% to Republican candidates, 31.8% to Democrat candidates, and 8.7% to ballot measures. They have actively lobbied on many bills too, such as a bill which would have required all prisons with a Federal contract to disclose information just as Federal facilities are required to make available. That bill died in subcommittee. They also lobby hard for more minimum sentences, which obviously has a beneficial impact on these private corporations bottom lines, while producing no tangible benefits to society at large. Minimum sentences increase the risk of re-offending, and there is no benefit produced in terms of public safety.

What about the costs? Glad you asked, a 2008 National Institute of Justice report compared a Bureau of Prisons study with estimates from Abt Associates, and found that Abt Associates did not include overhead or indirect costs in their accounting, making private prisons look artificially more cost effective. In 1996 the General Accounting Office compared public and private prison costs in five states, Texas, California, Tennessee, New Mexico, and Washington, and found little difference in costs. A meta-analyses in 2009 by the University of Utah found minimal cost savings associated with private prisons, and also found that there was no guarantee that there would be any cost savings. Finally, Arizona Department of Corrections found in 2007 cost savings for medium security private facilities $954,069, but this was outweighed by losses in minimum security private prisons $1,297,308.
 
mentalfloss
#2
So that explains why we're building more prisons.

Huh.
 
petros
Avatar
#3
Capitalism is wunnerful!

How can a corporation (dead person) be given third party rights over a live, in the flesh Person?

It's time that Coprorations lost their status as Persons.
Last edited by petros; Jun 27th, 2011 at 08:47 AM..
 
mentalfloss
#4
Because Mountain Dew says so?
 
petros
#5
Ahhhh Mountain Dew. Kickapoo joy juice
 
captain morgan
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

How can a corporation (dead person) be given third party rights over a live, in the flesh Person?

It's time that Coprorations lost their status as Persons.

HAL 2000 is practically a person.
 
mentalfloss
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Capitalism is wunnerful!

How can a corporation (dead person) be given third party rights over a live, in the flesh Person?

All of the rights of a person, with none of the social responsibility.
 
YukonJack
#8
After the last few irrelevant posts, back to topic:

I personally do not care who holds those who need to be held from society, government or private institution, as long as they fulfill the mandate and mission of the primary concern: CORRECTION.

--

We have grown out of the age when the motivating factor in the establishment and maintenance of prisons were revenge and punishment. Well, hopefully.

So, if a private institution can perform that duty, more efficiently, while in full compliance of the law and the mission, why should I care? And if they do it more efficiently than the government, hurray, they saved me money.
 
mentalfloss
Avatar
+2
#9  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

So, if a private institution can perform that duty, more efficiently, while in full compliance of the law and the mission, why should I care? And if they do it more efficiently than the government, hurray, they saved me money.

As long as they stay in compliance with law, that's fine, but we've noticed over time that all private institutions begin to dilute any mission and compliance of law in favour of profits.

You're probably just ignorant of this, YJ, but the government is going to try and fill up these prisons with prisoners (regardless if they are really criminals), to make a profit. On the logistical side of things, they will pump out more police to essentially "create" more criminals and increase profits.

There is no ethical consideration for these moves, and it's obvious that our conservative government (which cares about money first and foremost), is endorsing this to get the green flowing.

This is the typical schizoid personality of a corporation which attempts to abandon all forms human dignity in favour of making a profit. It's all part of the military-industrial complex, except it's on our own soil instead of somewhere in the middle east.
 
Tonington
Avatar
+2
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

So, if a private institution can perform that duty, more efficiently, while in full compliance of the law and the mission, why should I care? And if they do it more efficiently than the government, hurray, they saved me money.

But they don't. They also campaign for more minimum sentences, successfully, which costs them more money, without improving public safety. And they lack the oversight that public systems have. So they aren't getting more for their buck, and what they are getting is unsure due to differences in reporting requirements.
Last edited by Tonington; Jun 27th, 2011 at 10:41 AM..
 
YukonJack
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

As long as they stay in compliance with law, that's fine, but we've noticed over time that all private institutions begin to dilute any mission and compliance of law in favour of profits.

You're probably just ignorant of this, YJ, but the government is going to try and fill up these prisons with prisoners (regardless if they are really criminals), to make a profit. On the logistical side of things, they will pump out more police to essentially "create" more criminals and increase profits.

There is no ethical consideration for these moves, and it's obvious that our conservative government (which cares about money first and foremost), is endorsing this to get the green flowing.

This is the typical schizoid personality of a corporation which attempts to abandon all forms human dignity in favour of making a profit. It's all part of the military-industrial complex, except it's on our own soil instead of somewhere in the middle east.

OK, point by point:

You are taking it for granted that anything private is evil and dishonest and everything government is moral and honest. Strike one.

It's not YJ, it's YukonJack. If you want respect, show respect. Now, since it would be the government providing the funds to the private prisons, and since the more prisoners there are the more the government have to pay, would not the government attempt to save money (provided of course that the government is not Liberal or NDP)? Only in your world would the government paying more would make more profit. And please stop your habit of calling me ignorant. Strike two.

The rest of your post is Strike three. You are out.
 
mentalfloss
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

You are taking it for granted that anything private is evil and dishonest and everything government is moral and honest. Strike one.

Slippery slope.

Third out. We win the championships.

Huzzah!
 
YukonJack
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

But they don't. They also campaign for more minimum sentences, successfully, which costs us more money, without improving public safety. And they lack the oversight that public systems have. So they aren't getting more for their buck, and what they are getting is unsure due to differences in reporting requirements.

Again, point by point: They don't? How do you know?

Let them campaign for minimum sentences all they like, a responsible government would make the law for the best protection of society for the least cost.

If the private institution hired all or most of the personnel from the presently publicly run institutions, would those employees suddenly lose all their great wisdom and insight? Would the change of the name of the payer on their pay-cheque diminish their faculties and abilities?

A responsible government would like to, in fact, demand, to see the results for all expenses. Accountability Would be more alive and well than now, because nobody questions the government about expenses now, with the exception of a yearly federal audit.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Slippery slope.

Third out. We win the championships.

Huzzah!

I feel properly humiliated, whipped, whopped and whooooped by a superior intellectual's superior and intelligent post!

Will I ever learn?
 
Tonington
Avatar
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

Again, point by point: They don't? How do you know?

Because I actually read the report...

Quote:

A responsible government would like to, in fact, demand, to see the results for all expenses. Accountability Would be more alive and well than now, because nobody questions the government about expenses now, with the exception of a yearly federal audit.

Did you even read any of the report? They don't have the same requirements, the oversight is not there...

Try reading this news article, if you won't actually RTFR:

--

And another one, for good measure, noting problems system wide:
--
 
YukonJack
#15
Tonnington, there are always bumps on the road, and hardly anything ever succeeded on the first try. The number of privately run prisons is meagre and you can be assured that you will never hear about those who are run honestly, comply with the law and are financially successful. After all, that is not news.

So, I concede that some of the first attempts, whether here on in the U.S. might have been less than financial success stories, my main concern was with the mission of the prison system: CORRECTION.

If a private company who is honest can run a prison I have no problem with that.
 
captain morgan
Avatar
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

But they don't. They also campaign for more minimum sentences, successfully, which costs them more money, without improving public safety. And they lack the oversight that public systems have. So they aren't getting more for their buck, and what they are getting is unsure due to differences in reporting requirements.

They don't comply with the law?.. Says who?

As far as them campaigning for minimum sentences, that is something that will be determined by gvt as is the issue of public safety in terms of whether or not it will have a positive impact.

The bottom-line is that in the OP, there were stats that indicated that the # of prisoners is way up... Perhaps this might be due to the number of crimes being committed is also up as well.
 
YukonJack
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

They don't comply with the law?.. Says who?

As far as them campaigning for minimum sentences, that is something that will be determined by gvt as is the issue of public safety in terms of whether or not it will have a positive impact.

The bottom-line is that in the OP, there were stats that indicated that the # of prisoners is way up... Perhaps this might be due to the number of crimes being committed is also up as well.

The number of crimes is usually closely related to the unemployment rate.

I will stop right there, before the usual suspects call me racist.
 
lone wolf
Avatar
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

The number of crimes is usually closely related to the unemployment rate.

I will stop right there, before the usual suspects call me racist.

In this case, you're right. It's more a call of survival than greed....
 
mentalfloss
Avatar
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

In this case, you're right. It's more a call of survival than greed....

Hmm.. I wonder if that also correlates with the ever increasing gap in wealth distribution...


Hmmmmmm.......


 
Tonington
Avatar
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

Tonnington, there are always bumps on the road, and hardly anything ever succeeded on the first try.

There are a number of private prisons, and a number of private prison contractors, and they have been around in their current form since 1984. That is a heck of a long time to get the kinks worked out. I'm not buying that argument.

Quote:

The number of privately run prisons is meagre and you can be assured that you will never hear about those who are run honestly, comply with the law and are financially successful.

Weapons grade bolonium. There are plenty of media outlets out there who would run with that type of news. Hardly a day goes by that the news outlets don't have some fellow from a free enterprise think tank like Heritage, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato, or some other outfit on the air touting these talking points.

Quote:

So, I concede that some of the first attempts, whether here on in the U.S. might have been less than financial success stories, my main concern was with the mission of the prison system: CORRECTION.

So, do you think the private prisons are better at applying this mandate?

Quote:

If a private company who is honest can run a prison I have no problem with that.

I guess that depends on your definition of honest. I wouldn't call this honest:

Quote:

In 2010, Hylton started a private prison consulting firm, called Hylton Kirk and Associates, while still working at the Department of Justice as the Federal Detention Trustee. After retiring from the trustee position, Hylton agreed to a consulting contract with The GEO Group worth $112,500.90. As Director of the U.S. Marshals, Hylton will head an agency that has a long-standing contractual relationship with The GEO Group. In 2010, the U.S. Marshal’s accounted for 19 percent of GEO’s revenue. With Hylton in a position to oversee government contracts with private prisons, the ongoing influence of private prison companies in the public sphere is virtually guaranteed.

I'd call that a strike out and a pop-fly.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

They don't comply with the law?.. Says who?

I was actually referring to the alleged improved efficiency.
 
mentalfloss
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

I'd call that a strike out and a pop-fly.

That's what YJ would call a bump in the road.
 
Tonington
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

That's what YJ would call a bump in the road.

That's not a bump, that's a ditch!
 
YukonJack
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

That's what YJ would call a bump in the road.

And this reply by mentalcase is what any sane person would call insane.
 
petros
Avatar
#24
Cost to the taxpayer is the same. There are no savings.

Don't we have laws against slave labour or payment in scrip?
 
YukonJack
+1
#25
Tonington, I am honest enough to concede. I may or may not bother to go and Google to find data to support my argument and to oppose yours. I realize that our views of the world and how it is run and should be run are different.

As the old saying goes: Vive La differance!
 
petros
Avatar
#26
This one is my favourite. Give a click YukonJack.

--

And another....

--

And more here too:

--
 
captain morgan
Avatar
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Hmm.. I wonder if that also correlates with the ever increasing gap in wealth distribution...


Hmmmmmm.......



How fitting.. Young Stalin in a red shirt on a red background pondering the plight of the innocent proletariat as a victim of capitalism.

BTW - What's that Red sh*t in his hand and was it cultivated with a hammer 'n sickle for the behest and benefit of the masses?

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Cost to the taxpayer is the same. There are no savings.

The costs are contracted unlike the bottomless pit of the public sector... The savings are in the form of knowing what those costs will be for a fixed period.
 
petros
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

How fitting.. Young Stalin in a red shirt on a red background pondering the plight of the innocent proletariat as a victim of capitalism.

BTW - What's that Red sh*t in his hand and was it cultivated with a hammer 'n sickle for the behest and benefit of the masses?



The costs are contracted unlike the bottomless pit of the public sector... The savings are in the form of knowing what those costs will be for a fixed period.

So that's why the new female prison is already short staffed?
 
mentalfloss
Avatar
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

How fitting.. Young Stalin in a red shirt on a red background pondering the plight of the innocent proletariat as a victim of capitalism.

BTW - What's that Red sh*t in his hand and was it cultivated with a hammer 'n sickle for the behest and benefit of the masses?

Oh look, Shakespeare came to the party with century old euphamisms, but he forgot his testicles in that old mason jar in his basement.

Why don't you open it up and make a point instead of copping out with the commie insult?
 
captain morgan
Avatar
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Oh look, Shakespeare came to the party with century old euphamisms, but he forgot his testicles in that old mason jar in his basement.

As expected... No answer to the sad little demands of the theoretical society in which you pine for... Privately run prisons are bad because of wage gaps...

Maybe you ought to get in touch with the Shakespeare Society and collect your balls that are stored in the same jar as The Bard.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

So that's why the new female prison is already short staffed?

Good point.. If the prison was run by the Feds, there would be an over supply of guards.
 

Similar Threads

3
Brian said it was private business!!!!
by Socrates the Greek | Nov 14th, 2007
no new posts