really?
you've been given your answer, you've been reminded of that answer, and you
still want to ask?
you've been given the answer on this also.. once by Howie, once by me, and once by chuck..
there are simply things that should not have a 'profit' attached to them.. and prisons are one of them. They breed corruption and that kind of corruption has major consequences to the general public.
you've been given examples of that... this plan is simply not 'better' than then shit we have now.
when the profit margin depends on the amount of inmates one has in it's prison, what do you suggest happen to keep profit high each year? of course more lenient judges and laws doesn't fit into your business plan, low recidivism rates also aren't a good thing.. and hell, if you can set up harsh penalties for minor offenses while they're serving time, well that just keeps there on your book doesn't it?
You can't sit there and act like there would never be any corruption in this kind of scenario, but corporate corruption seems to be OK with you and other libertarians.. the utopian philosophy of the 'market sorting it out' is just too great to acknowledge as the fairy tale that it truly is...
this kind of 'for profit' system is not better... as for cheaper?
only if they 'pad their prisons'
huh, corruption.. who would have seen that coming
But I'm sure this has bee remedied in the last 10 years?
or has it?
I certainly don't know, but it doesn't look like it..
so it's not just a 'colorado thing'..
Like it's been said
and more..
http://www.ccjrc.org/pdf/CostDataReport2002.pdfthis is something we've known for 10 years.. why in the hell are we still doing it?
because ideologues can't distinguish between reality and their utopian dreams..
more..
another
and here's a question... atleast prison guards are DOJ employees.. so if they have to react harshly to an inmate, they are 'cop-like' so it's considered 'ok'.. because we hope that they have been screen and trained.. but what of the private prison workers? Those are just McD's employees with authority, is that really what we want?
not too mention
Nothing about this is better or cheaper.. but it's a whole hell of a lot worse that's for sure.
one thing is certain, after 10 years of studies.. there still isn't any proof that this option is cheaper for the state..
I think you didn't read my post.
Or you did.
That's OK. The concepts are not really for you. I've learned over the years that I'm not the one that can explain economics to you in a way you will understand. Suffice it to say that if the State does it better and cheaper, they should do it. If they can't, they shouldn't. That should be the purpose of the bidding process, to see if you can get the service done cheaper.
