The All Things Political Topic - Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

[Guard Dog]

10 minutes ago, alanschu said:

While true I am encompassing in general institutions that are able to profit off of incarcerated folk, I'm not sure your assessment is correct?

"In 2019, privately operated facilities held 7% of state prisoners and 16% of federal prisoners."

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/p19.pdf

Of course contractors make a profit on  their services. No matter that service that is. If a private company is running a SP for a State DOC they are making money on doing it. So yes you could say they are making money on incarceration but that dies not rise to the level you seem to want to take it. They are not "incentivized" to lock people up for a better profit. They don't lock people up. The State does that. All the contractors are doing is maintaining the facility, making sure the prisoners are fed, secured, and otherwise provided for. It is no different than a state run CP. The only ones I'm familiar with are done in Florida and they were all minimum security/work camps. White collar or non violent with short sentences. Medium and maximum security in Florida was not contracted last I heard. The scenario you are imagining just does not exist that I've ever heard of. 

[Gfted1]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

The thought of going to prison definitely helps with people who may want to break the law but knowing they face jail time and consequence means they less likely to break the law 

Whats the alternative, no prisons for criminal behavior?

Prison definitely dissuades me from a life of crime. Im too pretty to go to prison...Id have to join the Italian gang...theyd probably want me to shank someone to get in...its all too messy.

56 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

I think we've done this before. How many people are in jail for stealing loaves of bread, Jean Valjean?

Im not sure, an earlier link I posted showed the majority of prisoners are there for theft related crimes. You can go back and look at it.

53 minutes ago, alanschu said:

I had the impression from the subsequent post below that this isn't a view you genuinely hold?

I dont understand. Not a day goes by that my wife and I wake up, look at each other lovingly, and say F-work. But I will recognize that some people love their jobs, I just dont know any.

[Hurlshort]

8 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Im not sure, an earlier link I posted showed the majority of prisoners are there for theft related crimes. You can go back and look at it.

Your link said that the majority of (reported) crimes were theft. It didn't say anything about prison or prosecution. As I've said, crime rates and imprisonments rates are not connected in the way you are assuming.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Hurlsnot

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Okay but why is the guy in the video saying Twitter isnt profitable, its ideological?

Twitter made over billion loss in 2020, even though it revenue increased, which people have used as proof for their ideological beliefs, as in 2019 Twitter made over billion profit, but people seem to ignore that Twitter loss was because they made acquisitions, not because their business suddenly collapsed.

[alanschu]

22 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Of course contractors make a profit on  their services. No matter that service that is. If a private company is running a SP for a State DOC they are making money on doing it. So yes you could say they are making money on incarceration but that dies not rise to the level you seem to want to take it. They are not "incentivized" to lock people up for a better profit. They don't lock people up. The State does that. All the contractors are doing is maintaining the facility, making sure the prisoners are fed, secured, and otherwise provided for. It is no different than a state run CP. The only ones I'm familiar with are done in Florida and they were all minimum security/work camps. White collar or non violent with short sentences. Medium and maximum security in Florida was not contracted last I heard. The scenario you are imagining just does not exist that I've ever heard of. 

I'm unaware of anyone suggesting that private prisons are the ones deciding who does or does not go to prison. Of course they do not do that.

But your whole posting on this is weird as you initially claimed "AFAIK no state has "private prisons"" and I pointed you to an article that said that that is indeed the case. Privately owned and operated prisons indeed exist, and assorted governments indeed contract out to those companies to use the facilities. On it's face the claim of "it's no different than a state run CP" sounds like when BioWare tried telling us that they decided to layoff a bunch of our admin staff and contract out to some third party to perform those tasks and it should be "no different" than it was. If it's not different, then why do it? The reasoning is usually aligned with any sort of privatization belief: it'll save money either in directly reducing costs or that money would be used more efficiently than if it was being paid by the government. If it was no different than a state run CP, then there'd be no need to do so.

As for incentivization, do you think it is purely coincidental that private prisons have recidivism rates almost 20% higher than public prison? Cutting costs for rehabilitation both lowers the operating costs for the prison while also providing conditions that are highly linked with recidivism.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2021.672110/full

A quick list of some of the findings when they reviewed literature

• Many inmates are denied basic needs including food
• Guards are paid poorly, and receive poor training. They're often told to not intervene in fights
  • This results in private prisons being more violent, which is another strong predictor of recidivism
• Prisons are often severely understaffed
• Guards employed at private prisons report unfair discipline and inadequate health care

Here is another paper detailing ways that private prisons end up facilitating recidivism with 5 key points (some restated from the above report)

• Private prisons have higher rates of recidivism
• Private prisons are more violent, and violence in prison is a strong predictor of recidivism
• Private prisons seek contracts with out of state justice departments to fill beds, and lack of contact with families is a predictor for recidivism
• Prison phone companies charge inmates high rates to make phone calls and lobby to ensure this, reinforcing a lack of contact with families (and one that in particular harms poorer families more than richer ones)
• Prison video call companies can require in person visitation to be banned, requiring inmates to use their services. This increases costs (especially for poor families) and undermines contact with families, which leads to increased recidivism.

You might enjoy the last paper in particular, as they detail how Florida once claimed that private prisons lower recidivism rates, but the director of those studies was later "penalized by the Florida Ethics Commission for receiving large consulting fees from the private corrections industry, opening the door for conflicts of interest and calling into question the studies’ conclusions." I'm sure you're not surprised that a government representative was being corrupt.

And while a company like GEO Group may not be the one performing convictions, they do indeed lobby the government. They lobbied the Trump administration to overturn Deputy AG Sally Yates' decision to no longer renew contracts with private prisons after finding that it only lead to mistreatment of inmates for no real cost savings. They also lobby governments for harsher punishments and , and are open about how more prisoners is good for shareholders when making forward looking statements in earnings reports and giving executives compensation benefits for financial success. The government lobbying also includes things like mandatory minimums, three strike laws, and encouraging that any new laws that are set to come to pass include incarceration time as well as resisting any sort of decriminalization efforts.

Yet in your view, none of that could be seen as "incentivizing." I find it surreal that a (at times very reasonable) skepticism towards government and its involvement in your life seemingly abruptly ends at the idea that people can and will leverage said government for their own benefits surrounding incarceration regardless of the societal benefits AND taking your taxes in order to do so.

(And none of this even touches on prison labour)

[BruceVC]

@Hurlshot and @alanschu

I think most of us recognize that in a country like the US their have been laws that have led to people being unfairly incarcerated for petty crimes that should not have led to them be jailed. For example some of the 3 strike outcomes are unfair and jailing people for cannabis possession is absurd because people, and particularly African Americans in some states, who are not criminals end up being sent to jail and become institutionalized criminals

But lets be honest about a few things. The argument " prisons dont stop crime " is a false narrative and misunderstands  the reason we have prisons in all our societies. Prisons exist primarily as consequence for both dysfunctional behavior and criminal behavior and they play a critical role in this 

Their are people in this world that wake up every morning who have wealth and access to resources but they could be rapists, pedophiles, mass shooters, violent gang members, extremists on both the left and right,  unashamed fraudsters, murderers and other types of criminals. Many of them commit these heinous deeds because they enjoy it and want to do it  ...they not forced to it and its not society making them

They have a choice and their needs to be consequence for that choice 

These people must and should end up in prison and be removed from society so they cant cause more harm

That's why prisons exist, it doesn't matter if prisons make money. That is not going to stop people committing crimes 

[BruceVC]

7 hours ago, Elerond said:

Twitter made over billion loss in 2020, even though it revenue increased, which people have used as proof for their ideological beliefs, as in 2019 Twitter made over billion profit, but people seem to ignore that Twitter loss was because they made acquisitions, not because their business suddenly collapsed.

Okay, interesting. Thanks for sharing

[Guard Dog]

Biden admin considering shutting down their new "Ministry of Truth" : Biden Administration Considers Shutting Down Disinformation Board amid Blistering Criticism: Report

This would unquestioningly be for the best. Even if something like this is created with the best if intentions (not saying that is the case here) you had better believe it will be weaponized sooner or later. Almost certainly sooner. People are going to believe stupid and even dangerous s--t. There is NOTHING the government can or should do about it. 

[BruceVC]

19 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Biden admin considering shutting down their new "Ministry of Truth" : Biden Administration Considers Shutting Down Disinformation Board amid Blistering Criticism: Report

This would unquestioningly be for the best. Even if something like this is created with the best if intentions (not saying that is the case here) you had better believe it will be weaponized sooner or later. Almost certainly sooner. People are going to believe stupid and even dangerous s--t. There is NOTHING the government can or should do about it. 

Doesn't surprise me in the least, great news if it is shutdown 

 

[Amentep]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Biden admin considering shutting down their new "Ministry of Truth" : Biden Administration Considers Shutting Down Disinformation Board amid Blistering Criticism: Report

This would unquestioningly be for the best. Even if something like this is created with the best if intentions (not saying that is the case here) you had better believe it will be weaponized sooner or later. Almost certainly sooner. People are going to believe stupid and even dangerous s--t. There is NOTHING the government can or should do about it. 

Not even getting into good/bad, but if the problem is that people don't believe the message from the government, more message from the government isn't going to fix the problem.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Amentep said:

Not even getting into good/bad, but if the problem is that people don't believe the message from the government, more message from the government isn't going to fix the problem.

But arent you concerned as a US citizen with institutions that claim to be concerned with misinformation supporting\endorsing  misinformation themselves?

[Amentep]

Just now, BruceVC said:

But arent you concerned as a US citizen with institutions that claim to be concerned with misinformation supporting\endorsing  misinformation themselves?

If people aren't going to believe the facts, presenting them with the facts isn't going to 'fix' the situation.  That's different from 'institutions' supporting/spreading misinformation, but also if the entities are private then there's a free speech issue in the US if the government tries to curtail the speech.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Amentep said:

Not even getting into good/bad, but if the problem is that people don't believe the message from the government, more message from the government isn't going to fix the problem.

solutions is all long-term and unfortunate is gonna be as much if not more resistance to real solutions 'cause they involves education, and education is current a bugaboo for elements on both sides o' the aisle but particular for the maga crowd. with US first amendment, you are not gonna stop the flow o' disinformation. solutions has gotta instead be dedicated to teaching the public to discern disinformation and how to choose more reliable options w/o ignoring fact even reliable options for info is gonna be wrong 'cause o' biases (willful and unconscious) as well as simple mistake.

we recent read a couple scholar linked articles offered in this thread. am not gonna call out specific, but the sources offered were terrible, but you wouldn't know they were terrible unless you bothered to read not only the sources offered but a few o' the linked sources the articles used as support. follow chain and realize the authors use a single judge taking bribes from a local private run juveniles facility to support the notion that law enforcement is active supporting privatization efforts is kinda a suspect basis for a generalized claim, no? bunch o' such examples, but who is gonna read what appears to be legit academic sources, eh?

worse, we got the folks who cannot discern reputable sources from reliable. as already noted, no source deserves your complete faith, but the conspiracy-minded folks is quick to dismiss those news sources which do not conform to their own personal biases. why? well, look how many times ________ and _________ reported wrong. *sigh* saw this with the russian invasion o' ukraine invasion stuff. if ___________ reports that "pentagon sources say," and the pentagon source ends up being wrong, then is not a situation where _________ were wrong and unreliable, but rather the reader didn't have enough intelligence to realize that unnamed pentagon resources is not particular reliable given obscurity and uncertainty which comes with the fog o' war. readers need be smart... more smarty. regardless, just 'cause a so-called reliable source is run by libs or conservatives don't make 'em wrong, unfortunate we got a populace so distrustful o' news in general that any source which do not resonate with the reader will be dismissed outta hand.

is also true major news outlets which provide news daily or even 24/7 is gonna be wrong from time-to-time. *feigned shock* nevertheless, the folks who argue in favour o' their skeevy state-run sources or fringey conspiracy blogs will focus anecdotal on the times major and reputable sources got wrong and ignore how their preferred sources is orders o' magnitude less reliable particular when a relevant issue is related to an obvious bias o' the source. 

first step o' education is the most difficult: help people understand their own biases and how those biases colour their perceptions. regardless, the real solutions all involve teaching kids to be better than us. decades long approach to fixing disinformation. decades long fixes is not political popular. explain how the real solutions to biggest problems is generational, taking many years to provide meaningful results is never gonna sell in a democratic republic. each new Congress or Presidential administration is gonna have their own priorities and is rare generational fixes survive. is much easier and is providing a better political payoff to end those useless and anti-liberty government programs initiated by they and them from the previous Congress or the former President than it is to commit to long-term solutions. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[rjshae]

2 hours ago, Amentep said:

Not even getting into good/bad, but if the problem is that people don't believe the message from the government, more message from the government isn't going to fix the problem.

Mmm, actually we have plenty of evidence that repeating a statement, even a bold-faced lie, does have a reinforcing effect that makes it more credible to a significant portion of the populace. Cf. Trump.

[Gromnir]

24 minutes ago, rjshae said:

even a bold-faced lie, does have a reinforcing effect that makes it more credible to a significant portion of the populace.

you identify/repeat the problem and not a solution. is overstatement and misleading to state that lies is believed the more they is repeated. no matter how many times Gromnir hears moon hoax claims, am not gonna be more likely to believe. am not the significant portion o' the population which already wants to believe the government would coverup a moon hoax and we got too much science-based education to fall for the outright misinformation.

you are speaking o' lies which resonates with a significant portion o' the population 'cause o' biases or faith in the speaker. is those lies which gonna be believed even if is untrue. can't fix that with more truth or alternative lies. also, and have observed this curiosity more than once, but is distrust o' mainstream news and government which counter-intuitive results in the self described cynics glomping onto alternative and fringy sources. the more the mainstream news and government pushes back on the lies and disinformation, the more credible the lie becomes to the "significant" portion of the populace which wants to believe the lie. after all, the reasoning *snort* goes that the government wouldn't be pushing back so hard if there wasn't something to hide and the faceless and soulless government is precise the kinda organization which could fabricate chem trails or seth rich and then manage a believable coverup. prove such lies ain't true, eh?

lies which resonate is credible to a significant portion o' the population 'cause we educated previous generations poorly and have now replaced reflection and cynicism with faith-based political beliefs and fear inspired ideology as sold by folks such as tucker carlson. to be fair, is not as if ignorance is a new problem. the situation we face in 2022 is no different than the mid 1800s or 1920s or whenever save for changes in tech. the internet and social media makes it much easier for the disenchanted, fearful and angry to find sources on the internet which resonate. lies proliferate so much faster nowadays and those who embrace quackery and lies no longer feel marginalized by embracing their crackpot beliefs 'cause is always experts somewhere on the net who agree with them. heck, we even had a President, an unrepentant fabulist, spewing national enquirer quality bs, which further legitimized for the "significant" portion of the populace," that their ignorance were in fact the last best hope for preserving democracy and the american way o' life... but not real democracy or american life as it ever existed for reals, but rather the convenient fairytales sold by skeevy politicians and infotainers.

if there is a solution to the problem o' disinformation other than real education we ain't seen it, and education takes time and bipartisan commitment. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Jesus Tapdancing Christ, this is perfect.

[rjshae]

U.S. conservative conference with Hungary’s hardline leader reflects Republican divide

Quote

 

America’s most prominent conservative gathering, founded on ideals of personal liberty and limited government, convenes in Budapest next month to celebrate a European leader accused of undermining democracy and individual rights.

The May meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is seen by some Republicans as a test of how closely American conservatives are willing align themselves with a global movement of far-right, Russia-friendly strongmen embraced by former U.S. President Donald Trump.

 

Well this is disturbing. More anti-democracy behavior by the knucklehead faction.

[Malcador]

Well Gorth must be happy today

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

Well Gorth must be happy today

To be honest, the opposition party is not my cup of tea either. It was either that or the lying, walking Chlamydia for too many years (as if it hadn't been too many years already). But the Labour Party also has a rather spotty reputation for doing away with peoples votes and doing leadership replacements and nocturnal backstabbing, meaning you tend to end up with another leader than the one that got the majority of peoples votes, some real bait and switch action... If I had been able to vote, I would probably have voted for either the green party or independents (unlike the US, independents in other countries can be very powerful and be the proverbial tip on the scale of hung parliaments)

 

[HoonDing]

 

[Chairchucker]

16 hours ago, Gorth said:

To be honest, the opposition party is not my cup of tea either. It was either that or the lying, walking Chlamydia for too many years (as if it hadn't been too many years already). But the Labour Party also has a rather spotty reputation for doing away with peoples votes and doing leadership replacements and nocturnal backstabbing, meaning you tend to end up with another leader than the one that got the majority of peoples votes, some real bait and switch action... If I had been able to vote, I would probably have voted for either the green party or independents (unlike the US, independents in other countries can be very powerful and be the proverbial tip on the scale of hung parliaments)

 

Looks like we've got a higher than usual number of Greens and Independents.

I'm happy with the result. Could've done with even more Greens and Independents, but overall I'm pretty positive about the weekend.

[Elerond]

2 hours ago, Chairchucker said:

Looks like we've got a higher than usual number of Greens and Independents.

I'm happy with the result. Could've done with even more Greens and Independents, but overall I'm pretty positive about the weekend.

Green seem to have got quite lot votes (11.9%) but they only got two house seats (one more than last election) and five senate seats (one less than last election)

[Chairchucker]

2 hours ago, Elerond said:

Green seem to have got quite lot votes (11.9%) but they only got two house seats (one more than last election) and five senate seats (one less than last election)

ABC website seems to think Green are likelyish for four house seats? Brisbane, Griffith, Melbourne, Ryan.

 

And 12 senate seats.

[Elerond]

16 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

ABC website seems to think Green are likelyish for four house seats? Brisbane, Griffith, Melbourne, Ryan.

 

And 12 senate seats.

I looked numbers from Guardian's live results page (they have not predicted winners for Brisbane, Griffith).

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ng-interactive/2022/may/21/australia-election-2022-results-live-tracker-australian-federal-poll-who-won-is-winning-track-the-votes-seat-counts-electoral-commission-aec-latest-seat-count?CMP=cvau_sfl

 

With senators it seems that I misunderstood what Guardian's numbers represent, as when I fist looked them I thought that they meant that current is replaced by new.

[Gorth]

3 hours ago, Elerond said:

I looked numbers from Guardian's live results page (they have not predicted winners for Brisbane, Griffith).

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ng-interactive/2022/may/21/australia-election-2022-results-live-tracker-australian-federal-poll-who-won-is-winning-track-the-votes-seat-counts-electoral-commission-aec-latest-seat-count?CMP=cvau_sfl

 

With senators it seems that I misunderstood what Guardian's numbers represent, as when I fist looked them I thought that they meant that current is replaced by new.

ABC news has predicted Greens to win Griffith (leading with 69%)