Alas, the "kids for cash" scandal was such a big news event that it dominates the results for any search you'd do on the subject of private prison corruption, but it's hardly the only example.
It's possible that you're genuine in your confusion here; it is, however very hard for me to believe that there are people who genuinely don't understand that when the state spends money it -goes somewhere-.
The state as a whole does not have a financial motivation.
The interests of the criminal justice system on the other hand is heavily financially benefited from the current state of affairs. More incarcerations means more judges, more lawyers, more job security.
Moves to correct this are labeled as “soft of crime” and surely my opponent Congresswoman Y isn’t pro crime?
I wasn't claiming there was a financial motivation one way or the other simply stating the actors who do turn a profit with regards to the US prison system.
The explosion of incarceration and the private prisons resulting from that largely come from "the war on drugs". The book The New Jim Crow is pretty good if you're interested in the topic.
"What's the financial motivation for the state" is way too blinkered and makes at least 2 different false assumptions. There are other motivations besides financial, and it doesn't have to be the state's own motivation for the state to end up doing something.
Countless government policies and programs exist which give no legitimate benefit to the state or the people, no legitimate motivation, financial or otherwise, yet they exist anyway because they do benefit and motivate someone, financially or otherwise, who has some mechanism of influence to cause it to happen.
This is almost like asking "Why would anyone do something bad?" Gosh golly why indeed? 517,000 reasons and 124 new ones every day.
Relevant in that the directly upthread poster argued there was “zero financial motivation for the state for prevention or rehab or any other activities to reduce imprisonment rates”, which I claim is incorrect.
i.e. its not a good motivation to increase the number of prisoners (even if one looses less money per prisoner, more prisoners will mean more loss), but it does motivate investigating ways on how one can minimize the loss on individual prisoners.
I get how you could read it that way, and of course the state as the thing that is collecting taxes and paying whatever does not profit.
and the state as all citizens, including those affected by gang and drug related violence also would benefit from dong things differently.
it's those who benefit off the current prison labor system who lobby to keep it running, and they make it seem "natural" and "without alternatives"...
and "the state" (as the tax collecting entity) pays for the prisons and the inmates while the labor "providing" companies benefit off the labor.
it's a very very clever system.
enslavement without being called such.
and I agree, no, "the state" (as the totality of citizens) doesn't benefit.
only "the state" as the entity that's controlled by lobbyists and _pretends_ being by the people, for the people, that has no motivation to change this.