[NhanH]

I'm not sure, but does this have anything to do with being common law rather than civil law?

To be more specific, it's not a matter of the law being "too strict", but rather it's too vague and have to be interpreted by a judge. So until someone actually fight a case, the interpretation could be too broad and can be used easily. In civil law, you pretty much have to iterate everything.

Disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about. I used to live in a country with civil law, and since moving to the US, the common law system has always fascinated me.

[AnthonyMouse]

The vagueness of the laws are a different problem. If the laws were just vague then you could have judges interpreting them in favor of defendants as often as prosecutors.

If you had to point to one thing as the cause of all this, it is likely to be the privatization of criminal justice. As soon as you have a private prison or a defense contractor selling military-grade equipment to civilian police forces, you create the incentive for those organizations to lobby for more "customers" through broader prohibitions, tougher enforcement and harsher penalties.

[baddox]

> The vagueness of the laws are a different problem.

It's not really that separate. One way to have a very restrictive society with a high incarceration rate is to have a clear set of laws that are explicitly strict and strictly enforced. Another way is to have a set of laws so large, complex, and vague that it is literally physically impossible for anyone to know whether he or she is breaking a law by performing any given action, or laws so broad in scope that everyone is almost guaranteed to be guilty of something. While there is certainly some of both, I think the latter is a more accurate description of the United States.

> As soon as you have a private prison or a defense contractor selling military-grade equipment to civilian police forces, you create the incentive for those organizations to lobby for more "customers" through broader prohibitions, tougher enforcement and harsher penalties.

You don't even need "private" prisons or defense contractors in the sense you're probably thinking. Even organizations that are operated directly by government are subject to those personal incentives, because it's still individuals who rely on the government funding, both laborers for their livelihood, and higher level officers for career advancement, prestige, and power. Heck, even politicians who are elected directly often have perverse incentives, because the actions required to get reelected are potentially quite different than the actions which would accomplish the traditional goals of "good" government (like upholding law, being fair, increasing prosperity, etc.).

[mpyne]

I find it fascinating how so many systemic problems in the U.S. have such simple causes and easy solutions on HN.

[watwut]

Only 6% of american prisons are private.

[jfoutz]

It would be interesting to see corruption prosecution rates of judges sending people to private vs public prisons. All i can really think of are the 2 kids for cash judges, i'm sure there are plenty of unpaid corrupt judges as well.

[AnthonyMouse]

What point are you trying to make? It's not like public prisons send lobbyists to Congress to refute arguments being made by private prison lobbyists.

If 6% of your cells are cancerous you're in deep trouble.

[nickff]

In some states, the issue is not the private prison lobby, it is the prison guard lobby, which can be quite strong, as they may have a near monopoly on the provision of such services.[1][2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Correctional_Peace_O...

[2] http://kalwnews.org/audio/2011/07/19/just-how-powerful-calif...

[rayiner]

And most of the laws people on here don't like (I'll add cerfew for teenagers to the running list) were instituted long before we had a non-negligible amount of for-profit prisoners.

[coldtea]

That's 6% too much.

Letting private corporations profit from incacerated people? What's next, slavery for the blacks? Oh, wait that's been tried already...

[GregBuchholz]

>and have to be interpreted by a judge.

...and don't forget the important role that is supposed to be played by the jury. I always like opportunities to link to common law resources. I like:

"HAYEK, THE COMMON LAW,AND FLUID DRIVE"

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/nyufinal.pdf

"The Myth of the Rule of Law":

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm