GhostWriter16
Deity
Yeah, there should be laws against increasing the sentence for private gain. But I see no issue with private companies running the jails (Within the law.)
The Arizona Law and Prison Economics
- Thread starter Azale
- Start date
Yeah, there should be laws against increasing the sentence for private gain. But I see no issue with private companies running the jails (Within the law.)
Berzerker
Deity
Doesn't really change that the incentive exists or is negative.
the incentive is there regardless of who runs the system
The Feds give money to the states based on how many people are locked up
So? Only when the private sector is bribing the judges do the prisons get longer sentencing.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Yeah, that should be illegal and punished by going to prison (Trying to get someone else locked up illegally is the only non-violent crime I support prison for.)
Berzerker
Deity
I'm sure they do, state unions do too... Like prison guard unions, cops, etc... We even got some politician south of the border telling Californians they gotta keep locking people up for pot.
As a % private prisons are small... Roughly half the people in jails are there for drugs and it really started under Ronald "I believe in freedom" Reagan.
Berzerker
Deity
"Tough on crime" politicians and their supporters are largely responsible for longer prison sentences, especially for activities that aint crimes to begin with.
superisis
His Highness' dog at Kew
You don't support prison for conspiracy? Espionage? Fraud? Drug dealing? Theft?
Which has nothing to do with private companies bribing to make work for themselves.
GhostWriter16
Deity
If its conspiracy to commit a violent crime then sure. But I'd consider that basically a violent crime.
Why?
If they're a security risk, kill them, otherwise huge fine.
Huge fine, with requirement to work off what you can't pay (Courts involved for fairness.)
In cases where its illegal (I think most drugs should be legal to sell to adults) then fine, size depending on what you did exactly.
Double restitution rule.
superisis
His Highness' dog at Kew
How about nonviolent pedophilia/statutory rape?
GhostWriter16
Deity
Pedophilia depends on exactly what he did. If an 18+ year old sleeps with a 5- year old, just execute him.
If its a more grey area, like an 18 year old with a 12 year old, fine.
Statuary rape is a myth, rape by definition is non-consensual. In most cases a fine.
It's clear you're trying to play devil's advocate but you've come up with a ridiculous claim.
There is no such thing. What hypothetical situation you invent, Either it's something that shouldn't be a crime (insert, "17 is illegal in my country or whatever even if not in yours") or it should fairly be called just a violent crime.
There is no such thing. What hypothetical situation you invent, Either it's something that shouldn't be a crime (insert, "17 is illegal in my country or whatever even if not in yours") or it should fairly be called just a violent crime.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Well, if its like a five year old, as I said, its basically sexual abuse. There is no literal way the child can consent. It should be met with execution. Society does not need people who sexually abuse children. Hang them publicly.
As for more gray areas, its silly to call it rape. Illegal depending on the situation, but not rape, a fine is enough.
superisis
His Highness' dog at Kew
How is asking curious questions playing devil's advocate? He stated that no prison for non violent crimes (exceptions: trying to get someone into jail when they were innocent and conspiracy to commit violent crimes) and I asked him if it was true in some cases of non violent crime.
Are you seriously saying that there is no gray area when it comes to consent/age issues?
So if an 18 year old with a 5 year old is a violent crime (I don't see the necessary violence, but I'll agree for the sake of the argument), then where does the limit from violent crime to no crime at all go? 18 and 6? 18 and 7? 18 and 12? Sounds ridiculous to say that's it's only black and white?
And back to no prison sentences: Domination, what about non violent rapes performed on a drugged victim (ghb or something similar)?
There is incentive there whether it is public or private, but being private amplifies the incentive. You still have the politicians wanting to be 'tough on crime', and the prison guard unions wanting their jobs safe and secure, but you also have a new and massive player in the game; the prison companies whose profits would be proportional to the number of people incarcerated.
There's no such thing as a non-violent rape, is what I'm saying. Perhaps you do disagree with that, but I think it is pretty clear, and it is black and white - if it's actually "rape" and not "I'm just going to call some random thing rape that isn't for the sake of a hypothetical". And it still seems you're trying to make something up to create a hypothetical for the sake of disagreement.
superisis
His Highness' dog at Kew
When have I disagreed with Domination3000? You're the one using an aggressive tone and making accusations. And perhaps you like calling random things violent but in my book an acts needs some degree of violence to be called violent. But perhaps that's just me.
You took an outlandish stance for the sake of creating or continuing an argument. What I originally said was that you were trying to be like a Devil's Advocate. Perhaps you really didn't see or mean it that way though.
It just would seem in any context to me that a guy just deciding to start arguing that rape isn't a violent crime probably had an ulterior motive, but if you really meant that in its own right, so be it - I still don't agree with that position at all.
So again:
Rape is violence, period. Disagree if you must, but I hope many others won't agree with you. Rape should be seen as, and treated under the law, as a violent crime.
It just would seem in any context to me that a guy just deciding to start arguing that rape isn't a violent crime probably had an ulterior motive, but if you really meant that in its own right, so be it - I still don't agree with that position at all.
So again:
Rape is violence, period. Disagree if you must, but I hope many others won't agree with you. Rape should be seen as, and treated under the law, as a violent crime.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
From what I have read private prisons can and do make money by having their prisoners work for ridiculous wages. Sure, the prison has to be overcrowded for that to balance out the costs, but that is also what private prisons are (successfully) aiming at.
Similar threads
- Locked
