[renholder]

Right!? You can't have prisons run by for-profit companies and then expect everyone to believe you want low recidivism rates - much less low crime rates. Bodies make the businesses money, businesses making money keep running the jails/prisons, and "being tough on crime" gets the votes - so it's a self-perpetuating machine.

>These services are ludicrously expensive. Video calls cost 40¢ per minute in Newton County, 50¢ per minute in Lowndes County, and $10 per call in Allen County.

The use of the video system is now compulsory, in person visits are banned, and another at-cost for families of criminals is seemingly tacked on because... ...freedom? Capitalism?

At what point do we agree tapping the families of inmates (note: not the inmates, themselves) out of money is going too far?

[thatswrong0]

> You can't have prisons run by for-profit companies

IIRC only ~10% of prisoners are held in privately run prisons. It's kind of a red herring.

The bigger (and much harder to solve issue) is that all prisons, public or private, work with a slew of private companies in order to run (think food, phones, etc.) who have big incentives to keep the prison population high. And they can easily prey on prisoners, who are generally much poorer than the general population, because of America's concept of "justice".

But these huge costs of, say, video calls, are borne by the families of the incarcerated, who, like the prisoners that they're supporting, skew poor. As you pointed out, it's a vicious cycle.

[maxxxxx]

After living in the US since 2000 I believe that a majority of the US population believes in the punishment aspect of prison and thinks it's OK to make prison life as miserable as possible. There is not much thought about rehabilitation and I have heard lines like "Why do we have to pay for job training for them if I have to pay for college?" even from very liberal people. Punishing people as hard as possible is deeply entrenched in the american psyche.

[cyphar]

> I have heard lines like "Why do we have to pay for job training for them if I have to pay for college?" even from very liberal people.

I would argue most "very liberal people" would argue that both should be free. Granted, I'm not in the US, but free college is quite favourable nation-wide in the US in polls over the past few years -- let alone among progressive circles.

[Shorel]

I think the right answer is: "you should not need to pay for college"

[jstarfish]

> I have heard lines like "Why do we have to pay for job training for them if I have to pay for college?"

The answer to this is always, "...to keep his knife away from your throat."

[mynameishere]

You know, there are legitimate answers to that strawmanish question. Why would you say something ridiculous like that, which just begs the further response, "Well, then we better not release such monsters at all..."

[zeveb]

Careful — increasing the number of capital crimes, and actually executing criminals, would do that as well, as would imposing more life sentences.

[malaya_zemlya]

increasing the number of capital crimes might actually to increase the number of murders. If you are committing a capital crime, you have a strong incentive to get rid of the witnesses.

[anbop]

I’ve heard very few people arguing to expand the list of capital crimes. After all, California hasn’t even executed more than 700 people on death row, let alone all the other first degree murderers who could be executed without any expansion in the list of capital crimes.

[jstarfish]

> But these huge costs of, say, video calls, are borne by the families of the incarcerated, who, like the prisoners that they're supporting, skew poor.

Video-only options are inhumane, but the family gets screwed either way.

Prisons are built way out in the country and not easily accessible. These same poor families can end up commuting for four hours, burning through a tank of gas and hours of their time just to see a loved one for 30 minutes.

It takes its toll on them and eventually they stop coming to see you anyway. Video should have solved that problem as an alternative but of course, human nature being what it is...

[nyolfen]

this article is about jails

[chrisseaton]

The US is unusual in having separate jails and prisons - in most countries they’re the same thing - so people may not know the difference.

[briffle]

I'd almost be okay with the COSTS of the tech being borne by the families, Even with a reasonable profit to the company, but the extra kickback to the jail gives a very perverse incentive to raise rates over and over, to bring in more fees.

It also means someone with a competing product, that is better, and cheaper, won't be looked at seriously, if it doesn't include kickbacks.. (or do we call it something else now?)

[FireBeyond]

> if it doesn't include kickbacks

"incentive schemes" to "encourage prisoners to use video visits over personal visits".

[vajrapani666]

> IIRC only ~10% of prisoners are held in privately run prisons. It's kind of a red herring.

I disagree. Even if only 10% of prisoners are held in privately run prisons, the corporate leadership of those prisons has a disproportionate effect on policy-making for all people. CCA and GeoGroup are the largest recipients of federal contract award grants (for ICE), and they collectively make over 1bn / year from these contracts. They also sponsor legislation that _increases recidivism_ and makes it easier to put undocumented immigrants in their own jails. Just because a small % of the population is housed in private prisons, doesn't mean that private prison's have no impact on our society's relationship between profit and punishment.

[meko]

That is a very important distinction to make. Private contracts, milking the government by dealing in modern slavery.

[gumby]

Don't forget the power of prison guard and police unions, key drivers, ofCalifornia's three strike laws.

[dragonwriter]

> You can't have prisons run by for-profit companies

Prison officials and guards have financial incentive in keeping the imprisoning people business booming even when they work in public prisons.

[lotu]

> You can't have prisons run by for-profit companies and then expect everyone to believe you want low recidivism rates

Sure you can, it's just no one is doing. The private market is very efficient at finding the most efficient way to provide the things they are paid for. In this case they are paid to house people where house has a specific minimum definition. They figure out how to provide that stuff and nothing else.

If instead we paid in a way that encouraged reducing recidivism they would find a way to do that instead. For example today (according to google) the average prissioner costs $30K per year per inmate. let's say we paid $10K per year as a base, but then paid another $10K every year a former prisoner didn't commit a new crime for 5-7 years after they got out. Then these companies would be looking for ways to ensure that people don't reoffend because that means they lose out on the vast majority of their pay. I would expect the greedy selfish private prison companies to start providing lots things that prisoners will need to be successful when they leave for example behavior management strategies, life skills classes, GED programs, diagnosis and treatment for mental illness, even providing free post release things like job placement, or family counseling. All because these are things the will prevent recidivism and get them that sweet yearly payout.

The thing about greedy capitalists, is they are very easy manage, if you are the one paying them. If they are the ones paying you... well we call that corruption.

Really I think the fact we don't see more of this type of pattern suggests that city and states that run prisons care more about punishment than rehabilitation.

[piokoch]

That's what you propose sounds like a really good idea. One concern though: it seems that many people (not all of them) who end up in prison are not really a good people. Maybe for some of them education, psychological help, etc. would indeed help, however there could be a certain and not negligible percentage of people who will not take advantage of those opportunities and prefer to be criminals. No private company would decide to risk its income for a potentially bad bet. Recidivism rates in the US are high - from 45 to 80 percent (depending on various factors). Even if this was cut to best of the World Swedish 40% recidivism rate, this still will not be economically viable.

[FireBeyond]

That's more a matter, then, of adjusting the algorithm such that you recognize there will always be some recidivism, and you tier your goals, such that current status is "barely profitable", costs covered, etc., and that each leap to a new tier is more and more profitable.

[dragonwriter]

> but then paid another $10K every year a former prisoner didn't commit a new crime for 5-7 years after they got out.

Then you'd have a private corporation with agents with direct access to people with criminal backgrounds and connections with a direct financial incentive to ensure that an ex-prisoner was not identified as the perpetrator of any crimes in a certain period.

This might not work out exactly the way you hope.

[anbop]

What you’d get with this compensation scheme is prison classes in how to destroy evidence and how to avoid getting caught.