Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Privatizing Jails

Rate this topic


msk150

Recommended Posts

Hello, this is my first post. Recently me and my friend, who is also a contributer to this forum, had a debate about privitizing jails. He was for it, I was against. The reason I am against it is this. A person does not have a choice to go to jail if he is found guilty, he is forced to, (force in retilation against force). So then he does not have a choice, and since the courts should be government run, then if someone goes to jail, they lose their rights. So then government shoudl have controls of the jails, becuase there is no choice whehter to go, or to which. And if someone goes then they could be used as a private workforce without pay, or as slaves. (I am sorry if there are spelling errors, to use spellcheck it appears that you need to download a program, and since I am posting this at school I can't, so i will manully check it)

Thanks for your future input

msk150

Oh and by the way, my friend I was tlaking about is Tobyk100, the guy who posted about the ethics about killing squirrels. Just thought I would mention that.

Matt Klein

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then government shoudl have controls of the jails, becuase there is no choice whehter to go, or to which. And if someone goes then they could be used as a private workforce without pay, or as slaves.
Dood, dew git sum spelcheque. But anyhoodle, this is the crux of it, I think. All aspects of law enforcement should be under government control. That is not the same as saying "fully run by the government". Subcontracting proper government actions can be totally proper (it's not necessary that the comissary at the courthouse serve governmental rations, for example, and government can hire translators in court rathe than have a bank of e.g. Somali, Khmer and Zapotec translators qua government employees, waiting to be called on). I think the right thing to do is look at existing prisons, both fully-governmental and privately subcontracted. There are problems in both cases, but as far as I know (thought he sample is small), there are fewer problems with privately managed prisons than government prisons. The basic reason is that private firms have something to lose if they do a bad job on running prisons (namely, the contract), whereas governments can't lose their "contract". What is important in all cases is that the operation of the prisons be conducted consistent with objective, rights-respecting but criminal-punishing rules.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the strict flow of logic you use a bit difficult to follow, but I agree with your conclusion: Jails should not be privatized. I believe it because, in any situation where someone gains a benefit from another person being found guilty, you create an incentive for corruption. Private entities running jails may want to frame other people for crimes in order to boost demand for their services, or actually cause other people to commit crimes. I think the only time that it is right to give one person a benefit from another person being found guilty, is if the first person were wronged by the second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jails should not be privatized. I believe it because, in any situation where someone gains a benefit from another person being found guilty, you create an incentive for corruption. Private entities running jails may want to frame other people for crimes in order to boost demand for their services, or actually cause other people to commit crimes.

But you could apply this kind of argument to many relief services.

Hospitals that provide emergency care should not be privately owned because they benefit from individuals being injured. Such organizations might try to secretly injure individuals to stimulate profit. Therefore hospitals should always be managed by the government.

Vehicle-towing services benefit from individuals getting into automobile accidents. They might try to furtively cause accidents on major freeways. Therefore, vehicle-towing services should be provided by the government.

Fire-fighting departments benefit from individuals whose property becomes engulfed in flames. Therefore, they might surreptitously engage in arson to stimulate business. Therefore, all fire-fighting businesses should be operated and managed by the government.

We can cite numerous other examples of this form.

All of these lines of reasoning sound like the broken window fallacy in economics, which in one form claims that it is in the rational self-interest of a capitalist to eagerly anticipate destruction. This is claim false and it is well addressed in Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson.

Do you perceive that your example with prisons is any different from the above examples?

Of course, I understand that a few privately owned businesses may attempt (that is, have members in the business who will attempt) to engage in the dishonest and destructive behavior described above analogous to how individuals may attempt to commit violent crimes to try to gain a perceived value. But of course, this is where the government will step in to prevent the initiation of force.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By your logic, private medical care creates a situation where someone gains a benefit from another person being hurt.

This actually happens in India, where very nice restaurants sell food dirt-cheap, but poison it so that the people who eat it have to go to a hospital, and then the restaurants get a cut from the hospital. I am not joking about this.

But this would be an argument to enforce the law very strictly when it comes to those people, not "call in the government" just because someone is not acting morally. If we had to nationalize every business where a person can gain a short-term perceived benefit from acting immorally, we'd be living under communism.

Private prisons have been problematic, not because of privatization, but because of stupid regulations. For example, one private prison had a situation where prisoners went at each other with meat cleavers and all sorts of equipment for 90 minutes. Why? Because the rules stated that privately employed correctional officers ("prison guards") were not allowed to carry weapons, so the private prison just locked the area down and had to wait for armed, government-employed officers to be shipped there from the closest state-run prison. Idiocy!

I find the strict flow of logic you use a bit difficult to follow, but I agree with your conclusion: Jails should not be privatized. I believe it because, in any situation where someone gains a benefit from another person being found guilty, you create an incentive for corruption. Private entities running jails may want to frame other people for crimes in order to boost demand for their services, or actually cause other people to commit crimes. I think the only time that it is right to give one person a benefit from another person being found guilty, is if the first person were wronged by the second.
Edited by Karlshammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This actually happens in India, where very nice restaurants sell food dirt-cheap, but poison it so that the people who eat it have to go to a hospital, and then the restaurants get a cut from the hospital. I am not joking about this.

Could you please provide some examples where it was actually discovered that a restaurant in India was receiving kickbacks from hospitals for poisoning their customers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, I don't have any links. Feel free to search on the Internet for it, though.

What does it matter anyway? I provided the example to show how ridiculous it would be to nationalize an industry just because people have an incentive to do corrupt things, and that in fact EVERY business have the same incentive to do that in a corrupt person's eyes. The local computer store could break into your home and smash your computer, or the local tire store could come slash your tires, and probably make a tidy buck. :)

Could you please provide some examples where it was actually discovered that a restaurant in India was receiving kickbacks from hospitals for poisoning their customers?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I can't find any evidence at all of the described behavior in India, and there is a reason why I think that will almost never happen. In a capitalist society, men are free to take their business wherever they wish and to advertise as is necessary. Then such behavior would be business suicide, since the fact that the restaurant is serving unsafe food cannot be kept secret, and rational men would not commit suicide.

The main point is still valid -- the imaginary possibility that someone "might" act suicidally (by poisoning their customers) reduces to the absurdity that life if impossible, because every business or government could insanely decide "Hey, let's kill everybody!!". Shoes... has anybody considered what a disaster it would be is the shoe companies were to insanely innoculate all of our shoes with flesh-eating athlete's foot fungi?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, those restaurants prey on tourists who don't know better. Locals stay far away from those places. But then again, it's India... not exactly the home of rational thought! Those businesses would never survive in the west.

And yes... the funny fact is this: even if having the government run things made them safer (which it really doesn't), for moral reasons we would still have to object to it. Objectivism is not pragmatism. But, since the moral is the practical, privately-owned businesses are better and more moral.

Well, I can't find any evidence at all of the described behavior in India, and there is a reason why I think that will almost never happen. In a capitalist society, men are free to take their business wherever they wish and to advertise as is necessary. Then such behavior would be business suicide, since the fact that the restaurant is serving unsafe food cannot be kept secret, and rational men would not commit suicide.

The main point is still valid -- the imaginary possibility that someone "might" act suicidally (by poisoning their customers) reduces to the absurdity that life if impossible, because every business or government could insanely decide "Hey, let's kill everybody!!". Shoes... has anybody considered what a disaster it would be is the shoe companies were to insanely innoculate all of our shoes with flesh-eating athlete's foot fungi?

Edited by Karlshammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does it matter anyway?

Given that the position you have taken has already been well articulated, the veracity of your specific claim about India is inconsequential with respect to your original intent for propounding it.

Nevertheless, I was still curious if this claim is true considering that I might travel to India sometime in the future. The claim itself has the characteristics of one of those fictitous tourist horror stories. Many of my fellow graduate students are from India and I have several friends of non-Indian descent who have travelled to India. Nobody has ever mentioned such an incident or anything similar in essence. I even asked a few of my friends from India if restaurants regularly poisoning their clientele is a regular occurrence in their home country. Nobody really agreed although it was unclear that this would be front page news in the Times of India if such a shady practice was unearthed by local authorities. On that note, I cannot find any evidence of this easily with Google either.

Of course, India is much less of a litigious society than the United States is. I believe that isolated incidents of an independently operated restaurant intentionally and repeatedly poisoning patrons in order to receive a generous kickback from the one regional doctor is more likely to operate in India as opposed to in the United States or most parts in Europe. To my understanding, there are still frequent problems of unsafe drinking water in many regions of India so perhaps many patrons are unbeknowestly ingesting unsafe substances for other reasons.

Anyway, I am still skeptical that these intentional poisonings are a regular occurrence though.

I suspect that you understand the general importance of supporting one's claims with actual, legitimately documented examples from reality and not just hearsay (or e-mails that you must forward to all of your friends before something really terrible happens :lol: ) so no further comments on this practice is necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so back to the idea of private jails...... (not that India isn't important)

I think issues with corruption deal with privately run courts, not jails. The jails would not be in charge of administering justice, rather they would execute the punishment that has been given. The government could give contracts to individual firms who own jails. The firms would naturally compete with each other to provide safer facilities for both the convicts and the outside world. Last time I checked, this is just a variation of how things are done now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, I was still curious if this claim is true considering that I might travel to India sometime in the future. The claim itself has the characteristics of one of those fictitious tourist horror stories.
In the 30 years I lived in India, I've never heard of this, though it is quite common for tourists to get food-poisoning eating food that locals will eat with impunity, even in fairly nice restaurants (never drink the water...stick to Coke). "It happens" is untrue; "it happened" might be true -- people do all sorts of strange things.

On the prison-privatization thing, as David said, the key is that the government should be in control. If the incentives for corruption are too tempting or if it's just too easy, that would be a problem. There's corruption in a government-run system too. Either way, it's not a really important thing one way or the other, and often one has to experiment with various combinations to really understand what works best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been some good points here that I honestly hadn't considered, though I would like to say the following.

One significant difference between these other services which, left in private hands, could encourage corruption, is that private jails would encourage a special kind of corruption. While hospitals might try to injure people and fire-fighters cause fires, private jails would be particularly encouraged to manufacture false evidence for courts. I agree that injuries and arson are things the government should investigate, and the answer is not necessarily government control. But when people have a vested interest not just in doing wrongs, but in manipulating the agent that exists to protect against political wrongs, you have a separate category of danger. On top of this, jail--unlike other services--is decidedly the government's responsibility.

I do see, however, that hospitals and fire-fighters--if they are particularly organized and long-sighted--will also have a motive to manufacture evidence in order to protect their corruption, so in large part it looks just like jails. And so I particularly agree with softwareNerd's last post. It should be experimented with and found a more or less useful resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do see, however, that hospitals and fire-fighters--if they are particularly organized and long-sighted--will also have a motive to manufacture evidence in order to protect their corruption, so in large part it looks just like jails.
The whole system is predicated on a fundamental assumption that people will not be evil en mass; that a vast majority of people want to do well and do good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While hospitals might try to injure people and fire-fighters cause fires, private jails would be particularly encouraged to manufacture false evidence for courts.
The manufacturing of false evidence would be imaginable by police (justifying their existence), judges (justifying their existence), attorneys (justifying their existence), drivers to prisons be they government run or private (justifying their existence), wardens of state-run prisons (justifying their existence), the grocery suppliers to prisons (justifying their existence) as well as unscrupulous business competitors (eliminating the competition). So surely you see how the possibility of misconduct under color of law is an easy charge to throw around, sufficiently easy that it's in the realm of the nearly self-refuting. Wouldn't it be as dangerous to allow private industry to manufacture cars, since a car manufacturer could manipulate judges to get favorable court rulings? The manufacturers would have a "vested interest" in manipulating the judicial agents in charge of protecting rights.

Have you actually observed such behavior in private prisons? Do the statistics bear out the implication that private prisons are more dangerous that government run ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why you choose to focus on that quote rather than "I do see, however, that hospitals and fire-fighters--if they are particularly organized and long-sighted--will also have a motive to manufacture evidence in order to protect their corruption, so in large part it looks just like jails. And so I particularly agree with softwareNerd's last post. It should be experimented with and found a more or less useful resolution."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why you choose to focus on that quote rather than "I do see, however, that hospitals and fire-fighters--if they are particularly organized and long-sighted--will also have a motive to manufacture evidence in order to protect their corruption, so in large part it looks just like jails.
You misunderstood my reply: I was pointing out how ridiculous the entire argument was that you advanced, that it reduces to the absurdity that man must be the slave of the state, in order to be protected from possible misdeeds. You failed to get the point that all of life could be reduced to state-run paternalism, motivated by the fear that a corrupt person would somehow influence the government in order to win special treatment, and thus groceries, shoes, and music would have to be state-run to protect against corruption. That, or maybe the idea that people could act in a corrupt manner is not a justification for having government run businesses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you could apply this kind of argument to many relief services.[.. etc etc]

All of these lines of reasoning sound like the broken window fallacy in economics, which in one form claims that it is in the rational self-interest of a capitalist to eagerly anticipate destruction. This is claim false and it is well addressed in Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson.

Do you perceive that your example with prisons is any different from the above examples?

There is a couple of difference, although they may be subtle.

1) It's easier for a private prison to get away with doing such things, because people inherently care less about criminal rights. But more importantly...

2) Hospital poisoning others or a fire department setting fire are both illegal acts. But for a privatized prison to increase prisoners, they don't necessarily need to do anything illegal. Instead they could simply lobby for more patrols in poor neighborhoods, or lobby for harsher drug laws that carry say, longer mandatory sentences.

Basically as long as there are legal channels to increase profit, I don't see why a private business wouldn't do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) Hospital poisoning others or a fire department setting fire are both illegal acts. But for a privatized prison to increase prisoners, they don't necessarily need to do anything illegal. Instead they could simply lobby for more patrols in poor neighborhoods, or lobby for harsher drug laws that carry say, longer mandatory sentences.

Basically as long as there are legal channels to increase profit, I don't see why a private business wouldn't do it.

Do you consider private prisons using legal and voluntary means to enthusiastically enforce the law bad? I see no problem with this as long as the laws are generally good.

Of course if there are bad laws or poorly worded laws then it would be a problem if such organizations would choose to unethically exploit them. But all this shows is that if the laws of a nation are bad, then the residents probably have much more important things to worry about than whether or not their prisons are privatized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically as long as there are legal channels to increase profit, I don't see why a private business wouldn't do it.
Is that a normative claim or a descriptive one? It is true that some people, even those who run businesses, will engage in all sorts of legal immorality to increase their supply of cash -- they will actively lobby for subsidies for their businesses, work to create new government giveaways, seek protection from loss when business isn't ideal. But there are many reasons why a business shouldn't advocate violating people's right. I assume you know what the reasons are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you consider private prisons using legal and voluntary means to enthusiastically enforce the law bad? I see no problem with this as long as the laws are generally good.

Of course if there are bad laws or poorly worded laws then it would be a problem if such organizations would choose to unethically exploit them. But all this shows is that if the laws of a nation are bad, then the residents probably have much more important things to worry about than whether or not their prisons are privatized.

It depends on context. Private prisons are generally heavily subsidized in the first place. If they advocate for harsher laws than necessary, they're basically using tax money to fund campaigns that proposes that we spend even more tax money on enforcement, indictment, and incarceration.

The US prison system is dominated by minorities. A majority of them are incarcerated is drug related crimes. US annually spends billions of dollars on the war on drugs, and most of those money go towards fighting marijuana. We still have mandatory sentences for drug trafficking that often times puts weed dealers in jail far longer than men that convicted rape or assault, with no possibility for parole.

Now if I was a private prison, those would be the laws I lobby for. Are those laws bad? Some people think so, some people don't. Most people probably don't even care. After all the only people it really affect are poor minorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that a normative claim or a descriptive one? It is true that some people, even those who run businesses, will engage in all sorts of legal immorality to increase their supply of cash -- they will actively lobby for subsidies for their businesses, work to create new government giveaways, seek protection from loss when business isn't ideal. But there are many reasons why a business shouldn't advocate violating people's right. I assume you know what the reasons are.

Normative, from my experience working in finance. In fact most large corporations have teams of accountants and lawyers working around the clock just to figure out legal (and sometimes illegal or borderline) ways for which they can squeeze out money, as well as funding political campaigns and lobbying for advantageous laws. Look at how many white collar corporate scandals you see nowadays, and picture that as only the tip of the iceberg.

A publically traded corporation as an entity is pretty much amoral - they exist only to increase the value of the shareholder's stock. The whole system is designed from the bottom up for that sole purpose. Not for the greater good, not for philosophy or morality, but for profit. Corporate interaction is more akin to interactions between countries than interactions between men. They will always go for something when its deemed advantageous, anything that gives them that extra point of market share, as long as its legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Normative, from my experience working in finance.
Alright, then here is why. First, a business is a reflection of its creator's and owners' values, and living by the violation of rights is not a rational means of survival. Second, from a simple bottom-line perspective, surviving by the violation of rights is only possible if rights-principles themselves are destroyed, which translates into the numerous bad consequences for the business, such as the conclusion that other people' obligations to you under contract are not valid, and that you too are fair fodder for those seeking a sacrificial animal. So in order to live off of the blood of others, you must destroy the principles that would prevent them from living off of your blood. Working towards your own destruction is the essence of immorality, which is why you shouldn't do it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for answering a question that I never actually asked :confused:. But that doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.

I'm not arguing that it should be done. I'm telling you that it is consistently practiced in reality, and therefore I don't see why a private prison wouldn't do it if the money is there to be made. Yes you're right, a corporation is a reflection of its owner's values. And by far the greatest of their values is "making money".

Now admittedly I'm not well-versed in objectivism, since I found this site only because I really liked The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Could you elaborate on what you mean by living off violating others rights is not a rational mean of survival? Specifically, what are the "rights", what do you mean by "survival" (since I sense that there's a very specific meaning of survival that you're referring to), and finally why is it irrational?

By the way, given that your explanation on immorality is correct, it would pretty much mean that our system is already completely corrupted. So would an objectivist be obligated to fix the system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...