[hugh4]

That gives me an idea: prison vouchers.

Give each prisoner a voucher for a certain amount and let them choose where they want to serve out their sentence. Prisons will compete to offer tolerably humane conditions to inmates while still keeping under budget. (Prison escapes will be punished by huge fines so there's no incentive to cheap out on security.)

Flaws with this system: do prisons have to take a given inmate? If not, there will be troublesome inmates nobody is willing to imprison. If so, there will be a lot of incentives to try to get rid of these troublesome prisoners as soon as they arrive. Also, there's potential for cosy arrangements between gangs and prison operators to direct business towards them in exchange for favourable treatment.

[nevdka]

The ultimate goal of prisons is (or should be) to reduce crime. Why not directly incentivise prisons to reduce recidivism? Pay big bonuses if the ex-inmates aren't arrested/convicted/etc in the 3-5 years after they're released.

[dalke]

Or use the money that would go to such a system and instead direct it towards increased social services, to help reduce the number of people who commit crimes and enter the prison system in the first place.

[hugh4]

Yes, that's probably a better way of aligning incentives.

Plus it could be trialled on a small scale at first with just a few prisons. The main thing you'd need to watch out for is that prisons didnt just start working hard to offload their worst prisoners elsewhere.

[PebblesHD]

And now I can't stop imagining how a free market economy for prisons would work out. Fascinating thought, especially in relation to the idea of gangs using the system in such a way!

EDIT: I wonder what would happen the the idea of jurisdiction under such a system, would prisons within a certain locality get preference or would it be nation wide?

[anonbanker]

I laughed really hard at this post. I've long compared schools to prisons, but never with this much flair. People thought you were serious, to the point of wanting to ignore your future posts. That's some good satire right there. kudos to you, sir.

[Jordrok]

...I think this is satire... Right? Poe's Law is really kicking my ass here. The fact that it's so hard to tell is the scary part.

In any case, I alternately applaud/decry this hilarious/appalling idea.

[hugh4]

C'mon man, I at least critiqued my own wild-ass idea, you can do the same instead of dismissing it.

[risk]

I'd like to ignore everything you ever do on this website hereinafter. Is there a feature for that?

[wildmusings]

You're not supposed to like prison. It's a punishment for serious misdeeds. If your suggestion was implemented, the result would be despicable. Prisons would be competing to have the most plush accommodations. The guy who was raping little kids in his van shouldn't serve his time in a nice hotel.

[jacquesm]

> It's a punishment for serious misdeeds.

That's one view.

The other is that prisons are for correction and rehabilitation.

[pascalmemories]

> The guy who was raping little kids in his van shouldn't serve his time in a nice hotel

And there's a myth about prison right there. Spoken by someone who clearly has no idea how horrible prisons really are. And how dangerous and deadly they are for anyone even accused of offenses against children.

[wildmusings]

I'm talking about hugh4's suggestion for "prison choice" with vouchers. I said nothing at all about the current prison system.

[zeveb]

> The guy who was raping little kids in his van shouldn't serve his time in a nice hotel.

He shouldn't live, period: he should go straight from the jail where he was waiting trial, to the gallows. Prison should be for those who are bad enough to remove from society for a time, but not bad enough to execute; and since they will be returned to society, we should try to make sure that when they re-enter it they do so as productive, mentally-well members of society, rather than as beaten, brutalised future recidivists.

[gambiting]

It's a matter of personal opinion, but I don't think anyone has the right to give out a death sentence. Yes, even to a child rapist. As a society we are so rich we can easily keep those people in prison for life, and spare ourselves the moral implications of actually killing people.

[zeveb]

> As a society we are so rich we can easily keep those people in prison for life, and spare ourselves the moral implications of actually killing people.

But not the moral implications of keeping someone caged like an animal for the remainder of his life. What's worse: to die in a week, or to spend decades in prison?

[gambiting]

What's worse - finding out an innocent man spent 20 years in prison before being exonerated, or that he was killed? I know it's an extreme minority if cases - but there really is no reason to kill people. We are perfectly capable of keeping people locked for life, and that's what we should do for the worst offenders. Is it horrible? Of course. But the alternative is much worse.

[anonbanker]

and they should televise the whole thing, so that the public can get the blood they're all so clearly thirsty for.

I bet if televised, public executions would be the biggest PPV draw in Oklahoma and Kansas. It could fund schools, lower taxes, and most importantly, fund bigger gallows for executing more of the people we decide shouldn't live anymore.

[lgas]

I think you just give less vouchers to the kid rapist than you do to say someone in on involuntary manslaughter, who in turn gets less than someone in on GTA, who in turn gets less than a coke dealer, who in turn gets less than someone in on coke possession, etc.