as usual, you're the one who didn't read.. I not only read yours, but I answered it by providing studies/articles showing that while you think the state's only goal is to save costs.. using a private prison isn't the way to do that..
let's just hope no one decides to corrupt the system by hiding the real costs before it's too late.. not too mention let's hope the other corruption problem don't factor in here either. Not that you seem to mind them, as long as they tell you it's cheaper seems to be about all you care about..
You seem to have two thesis's about privatization of prisons. First, that they are inherently corrupt, and secondly, they don't do what they are sold to do: save money.
I don't know why privatization of prisons would be any more corrupt than than the privatization of any other service, or any State government purchase. It seems all of the same circumstances would apply whether the State is shopping for contractors for prisons, or contractor's for janitorial services. Or, for that matter, purchases, such as fleet vehicles. What is it about prisons that make their privatization more susceptible to corruption than any other good or service that the state purchases?
As far as saving money, I can easily believe that a state can either make a bad deal, choose a bad contractor, or have poor oversight, and end up spending more money for few services. I didn't discount your studies, but that's not the rule with privatization. Privatization has been going on at the state level for decades, and while every contract isn't a winner, overall it's performed well and has been a boon to the taxpayers. So is every contract a bad deal that hurts the taxpayers in your opinion or is this just an ideological thing?
