undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmooneater8y ago0 comments

Not sure how anyone informed can question whether this is a thing, so I wonder kind of strange bar you may have for evidence. But this issue is well covered (see below for just a few examples), and I've never heard intelligent rebuttals. I would say at this point, the onus is on you to show why this is not how it works.

- https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/07/c...

- https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/prison-priva...

- https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/12/the-pri...

0 comments

lev998y ago

I feel like you didn't adequately cover the "political pawns" phrase.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/...

rukittenme8y ago

There's a rebuttal for everything if you look.

According to the ACLU 7% of state prisoners and 18% of federal prisoners are in for-profit prisons[1]. Federal prisoners make up less than 20% of the total prisoners. So a minority of a minority are prisoners of the federal "prison-industrial complex".

I of course also hear the rebuttal that public prisons are supplied by private companies. Which is of course true. The government does not grow food or produce security cameras. Perhaps we'll accuse Georgia Pacific of being a beneficiary of the "collegiate-industrial complex" as well as the "prison-industrial complex" because they supply paper products.

I believe our prisons are broken. I believe our prisons are cruel and immoral. But I do not believe there is a vast conspiracy of private interests locking people away for the sake of profit. Nor do I believe that those interests influence our politicians in any meaningful way.

Ask yourself, is it likely that our politicians are completely beholden to an industry that makes up a fraction of a fraction of a percent of our economy? Or is it much more likely that our representatives believe private prisons could, should, or do work?

1. https://www.aclu.org/issues/mass-incarceration/privatization...

greeneggs8y ago

The "complex" isn't just of private companies. In California, for example, the prison officers' union (California Correctional Peace Officers Association or CCPOA) is a major political power, and advocates for harsher sentencing rules. This article describes some of its political history [1], starting in the 1990s.

> "In 1994, it was a major force behind the passage of Proposition 184, California’s “Three Strikes” initiative. In the same election cycle, it spent a record amount on former Gov. Pete Wilson’s successful reelection campaign…"

Since 2011 it seems to have reduced its spending on elections. However, this article [2] says that in the 2016 election they upped their spending again, and suggests that they had been splitting "members’ contributions among a half-dozen or more PACS" to somewhat obscure their advocacy.

[1] http://capitolweekly.net/ccpoa-transition-powerful-low-profi...

[2] http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-wor...

pixl978y ago

>Perhaps we'll accuse Georgia Pacific of being a beneficiary of the "collegiate-industrial complex" as well as the "prison-industrial complex" because they supply paper products.

If and when they donate to candidates for harsher sentences, then yes, they are.

Most businesses and people that work for said businesses tend to vote in a matter that leads to their continued employment.

>Ask yourself, is it likely that our politicians are completely beholden to an industry that makes up a fraction of a fraction of a percent of our economy?

Absolutely. You're thinking of the wrong economy. The economy that matters the most to a politician is the one that gives the most donations during the election.

bsenftner8y ago

I think it is highly likely that individual politicians accept lobby money from the private prison industry, which influences their votes on any issue impacting this "paying for their interests" constituent. Just repeat this, not very many times, and the nation's voting balance sways in their direction. Realize that each politician has a net of obligations, and by directly impacting a few's behavior, many other politicians are swayed due to their obligations towards their peers accepting lobby incentives. Speaking from experience, I worked very effectively as a lobbyist, until my ethics would not longer allow it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse