Private Prison Profile

Written By: - Date published: 11:41 am, June 29th, 2010 - 74 comments
Categories: australian politics, prisons, privatisation - Tags:

In yesterday’s news we heard that no charges were being brought after an Aboriginal man died in a Western Australian prison van, where he had a 4 hour ride without ventilation in 50degree plus temperatures that gave him 3rd degree burns. He had been provided with 600ml of water as they took him for the long ride to court to face a drink driving charge.

Whilst we may write it off as another example of Australia’s terrible treatment of Aborigines, it is interesting to see who was running the van: G4S.

When National get their ideological wish to get a prison privately run here, this large Australian/UK prison company will be the most likely candidate. Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident in Australia. In 2005 G4S subsidiary GSL was fined $500,000 after staff refused detainees water and access to a toilet on a seven‐hour bus trip between the Maribyrnong and Baxter detention centres. The death of a man from an unattended asthma attack amongst other deaths and violations failed to stop them recently being awarded another contract in Melbourne. It did lead Australian MP Tony Burke to say:

This is the private company that has people coming in the doors with no mental health problems and going out as broken human beings. There is one answer and one answer alone, and that is there have been enough breaches of this contract for the government to take action to terminate the privatisation of our detention centres. It was a bad idea from the start. It should not have taken place. It should not be continued.

Information on other possible bidders here

Bunji

74 comments on “Private Prison Profile ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tigger 1
    29 June 2010 at 11:50 am

    Well at least the allow their prisoners to smoke…

  2. salsy 2
    29 June 2010 at 11:56 am

    A fabulous podcast here from BFM regarding smoking, privatisation and the general sorry state of the New Zealand prison system by Peter Williams QC.

    http://www.95bfm.com/assets/sm/196145/3/PeterWilliamsSmokingPrisons.mp3

  3. WOOF 3
    29 June 2010 at 12:04 pm

    They must be barking mad to allow nasty little corporations to run our prisons when others like them treat their prisoners worse than dogs. It makes you wonder who the real criminals are.

    • Bill 3.1
      29 June 2010 at 12:12 pm

      Got to remember that ‘they’ are corporatists and Randists. Yes, they’re barking mad…and they’re in control in case you missed it.

      It is we who must be barking mad to allow them to remain in control and rolling out their private good/public evil, ‘s’cuse me while I line my pockets and evacuate on you bastards down below’ agenda.

  4. tsmithfield 4
    29 June 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Of course, the public system has had its own problems so far as transporting prisoners is concerned.

    • kaplan 4.1
      29 June 2010 at 12:30 pm

      No matter how you cut it. If an organisation stands to profit from jailing people there is ZERO incentive for that organisation to see crime rates drop.

      In fact from a purely business point of view (and how else would they look at it?) there is surely a big incentive for the private prison operator to make sure their customers become regular customers.

      • tsmithfield 4.1.1
        29 June 2010 at 12:37 pm

        This is faulty logic.

        IF the private system is not performing well it will most likely lose the contract. IF it is performing a lot better than the public system, THEN it will most likely get more of the crime business. Thus, the public system will lose out if it can’t perform as well. So there will definitely be profit motivation for the private operators to get recidivism down.

        • Bright Red 4.1.1.1
          29 June 2010 at 12:51 pm

          when private providers don’t perform well, the govt has to bail them out and pick up the pieces.

    • BLiP 4.2
      29 June 2010 at 12:37 pm

      What? It was a private contractor that was transporting Liam Ashley at the time of his murder. You twat.

      • tsmithfield 4.2.1
        29 June 2010 at 12:38 pm

        Maybe so. But it was a decision made by the public system

        • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.1
          29 June 2010 at 12:44 pm

          All the evidence is that the private process would make worse decisions.

          • tsmithfield 4.2.1.1.1
            29 June 2010 at 12:47 pm

            No. The public system made the first poor decision by determining the mode of transport. Can’t get past that one.

            • Bright Red 4.2.1.1.1.1
              29 June 2010 at 12:50 pm

              yeah, the poor decision was turning the role over to a private provider who just wants to make profits and cuts corners to do it

              • Alexandra …
                29 June 2010 at 1:28 pm

                I agree, private prisons will be motivated by profit and cost cutting will lead to more disasters like Liam Ashley.

              • tsmithfield …
                29 June 2010 at 1:52 pm

                Sorry BR. You’re barking up the wrong tree. Some questions: What decision making process did the public provider go through in selecting a private contractor? What parameters did the public provider set for the private operator? Was the public provider adequately monitoring the performance of the private provider?

                Think about it. If you contracted me to paint your roof, and I subcontracted the job to another painter, who would you hold responsible if the job turned to custard?

                • felix …
                  29 June 2010 at 5:03 pm

                  Unless you’re advocating for the entire justice system to be privately run your argument holds no water.

                  • Tigger …
                    29 June 2010 at 10:39 pm

                    Felix, don’t give them ideas…although I sincerely doubt they haven’t been considering it…

          • The Baron 4.2.1.1.2
            29 June 2010 at 7:31 pm

            another unsupported declaration from chairman Draco. do you not understand how to link your batshittery to real evidence?

        • felix 4.2.1.2
          29 June 2010 at 1:14 pm

          Then let’s follow ts’s logic and privatise the Police and Judiciary.

          And Parliament, come to think of it.

          After all, they’re ultimately responsible for the decision.

          (p.s. ts likely doesn’t believe any of what he’s saying anyway he’s been quite clear about that)

          • tsmithfield 4.2.1.2.1
            29 June 2010 at 3:17 pm

            Na. I’ve never said I don’t believe anything I say. I’ve said I don’t always believe what I say. However, whether I believe it or not is quite irrelevant to the debate.

            Let me ask you several questions, felix.

            If you were convinced of the merits of privatising a government organisation, would you agree with that course of action? Or would you oppose it anyway because it doesn’t suit your ideology?

            • felix 4.2.1.2.1.1
              29 June 2010 at 4:57 pm

              That’s why I said “likely” Tony. Lern to reed moar.

              And you’re quite right, it’s not relevant to this particular debate whether you believe it or not.

              What’s relevant to me, however, is that you have a habit of reversing your positions from one debate to the next when it suits you and claiming that it doesn’t really matter as you don’t need to believe what you write in order to argue a position.

              So while it may not technically be relevant to this particular debate, it is certainly relevant to the amount of energy I’m prepared to put into discussing anything with you.

              So I haven’t read your questions and I can’t think of any reason to do so.

              • tsmithfield …
                29 June 2010 at 5:09 pm

                Na, you’re still misrepresenting me, felix. “Likely” implies a strong likelihood that I don’t believe what I am writing. That is not the case at all. Sometimes I don’t believe what I write. This might be because I might want to take a devils advocate position because I feel the debate is going one way and the other side of the case should get an airing. Sometimes I exaggerate my point of view to elicit a response. Not wise to try and second guess whether I, or anyone else actually believes what they are writing.

                Sounds like a pretty lame reason to back out of answering a couple of simple questions, felix. Is that because you don’t want to answer me, or because you don’t want to answer those particular questions? I think I know which one.

                • Bored …
                  29 June 2010 at 7:44 pm

                  “Not wise to try and second guess whether I, or anyone else actually believes what they are writing.” So true when you are writing it, what chance we would believe you? Zero minus I suggest.

                  • tsmithfield …
                    29 June 2010 at 7:58 pm

                    So you only ever write things you absolutely believe? I can understand why you’re “bored” then.

                    • Bored …
                      29 June 2010 at 8:05 pm

                      Sadly I try to believe in what I write. But thats not why I am Bored, that comes from reading stupendously tedious opinions from dullards (who might or might not believe what they say, who am I to tell)?

                    • tsmithfield …
                      29 June 2010 at 8:17 pm

                      Thats right. You can’t tell whether someone actually believes what they’re writing or not. So, for the point of debating, belief is meaningless. It is the strength or otherwise of the argument that matters. Felix can’t seem to get over the fact that people can actually argue from a position just because they can, not necessarily because they believe it.

                      Generally speaking though, I do tend to signal if I am arguing something I don’t believe, by saying I am taking the position of Devils Advocate or something similar.

                      Sometimes someone has to take the other side in a debate otherwise it is all just one way traffic. After all, its the difference in opinion that makes debate interesting. Thats why I spend a lot more time here than I do at Kiwiblog.

                    • felix …
                      29 June 2010 at 10:38 pm

                      “Felix can’t seem to get over the fact that people can actually argue from a position just because they can, not necessarily because they believe it.”

                      Hey retard, I explained it very clearly above.

                      It’s not difficult to “get over” it’s that there’s no point once you’re there. You have no intention of discussing anything in good faith and you’ve stated that you enjoy the freedom of being able to change your position and argue the other side when it suits you.

                      The only time I’ve ever seen you claim devil’s advocate is after you’ve been caught in a lie or exposed as a fool.

                      You have your own reasons for being here. That doesn’t mean anyone else is obliged to play along with them so don’t patronise me and demand that I answer your meaningless rhetoric or discuss things in the way that you’d prefer.

                      The way you present yourself is your own responsibility so don’t come crying to me because no-one trusts you.

                      If people are tiring of your phoney style you can always use one of your other handles anyway.

                • Puddleglum …
                  29 June 2010 at 10:28 pm

                  I’m happy to answer the questions. If I was convinced then ‘yes’ – by definition.

                  But I’m curious as to what you think counts as being a ‘merit’. I presume you have in mind some ‘measures’ like – in the case of prisons – recidivism rates, humane treatment, cost per prisoner, etc.? What about some other value such as the need to have direct collective responsibility for and ‘ownership’ of imprisonment of other people in society? I guess you don’t include that because you would see that as ‘ideological’ rather than …???

                  But it is no more or less ideological than the assumption that the only things that matter are those other measures (recidivism rates, etc.) and that the question of whether something is privately owned and operated for a profit or ‘publicly/cooperatively’ ‘owned’ and run to carry out a collective responsibility is neither here nor there (dismissing that criterion is itself ‘ideological’, if you like).

                  For me the latter (the question of whether to have important social functions collectively ‘owned’ and operated) matters – for a host of broader reasons about how the overall kind of society we operate affects the wellbeing of its members – and so should be counted as one of the ‘merits’ upon which I would judge whether or not I’m convinced about privately run prisons.

                  Obviously, private companies operating for a profit would find it impossible to gain that ‘merit’. Hence, I’m not likely to be convinced despite being no more ideological than, possibly, you are. (Unless valuing something/anything is, in your terms, ‘ideological’?)

                  Note that my extra ‘measure’ of merit is just that – in addition to all the ‘merits’ you may wish to include as measures of ‘success’ in running an organisation.

    • Rex Widerstrom 4.3
      29 June 2010 at 3:50 pm

      And it’s the mishandled public investigation of G4S which has allowed them to escape prosecution for the horrendous death of Mr Ward:

      The State’s top prosecutor said there were “regrettable aspects” about the quality of the police investigation into the death of an Aboriginal man who died of heatstroke in the back of a prison van…

      Mr McGrath said police investigators had failed to separate the two security guards after the death and before they were interviewed by police. State Coroner Alastair Hope raised concerns in his findings of an inquest into Mr Ward’s death that the guards, Nina Stokoe and Graham Powell, were not kept separated before being interviewed.

      So it was yet more bumbling by WA’s Keystone Kops – a public entity – which brought about the appalling situation which triggered Bunji’s article.

      Which brings me back to the point I keep making whenever the issues of prvate prisons is raised: they don’t have to be bad. Acacia Prison (run by Serco, one of the possible operators of any NZ prison) is praised by the WA Inspector of Custodial Services and has prisoners queueing to be transferred to it, out of the crumbling and overcrowded state system.

      Unlike Barry Matthews, the operator of a private prison can be made accountable for any number of KPIs: prisoner education levels; recidivism rates; quality of the food… anything you like to name. It’s a matter of having the contract negotiated by someone who understands correctional management and gives a damn about prisoners and prison officers. And of excluding from consideration the likes of G4S, who have an appalling record not just of neglect but of cruelty.

      The danger in private prisons lies not in the operator who may be chosen to run them, but on the other side of the table: a Minister and a CEO who aren’t the slightest bit interested in the potential positives which could come out of such a move and indeed would, I suspect, actively oppose any such suggestions.

      • BLiP 4.3.1
        29 June 2010 at 5:43 pm

        Private prisons are intrinsically “bad”. They are a manifestation of the state’s desire to profit from the suffering of others. Private prisons are an overt admission of defeat in that they represent the position: crime will always be with us so lets make it pay.

        • Rex Widerstrom 4.3.1.1
          29 June 2010 at 5:55 pm

          That state doesn’t profit from the private prison BLiP (at least I’d hope they don’t demand a dividend) the private operator does. I personally don’t have a problem with that provided they’re meeting well enforced minimum standards of care, rehabilitation etc.

          For me it’s only about two objectives: recidivism reduction (to protect society) and prison conditions (to protect prisoners). While we’re still imprisoning people, if those two obejectives can be improved by a private operator I’ll leave my philosophical concerns at the door.

          I hope that crime will not always be with us. But it is now, and even if we have governments who were serious about reducing it (and the only politician I’ve seen understand it at all was Muldoon) then we need something in the meantime.

          Considering we’re never likely to have such a government then I’m reluctantly forced to agree that that pessimistic outlook is probably right… not for the reasons you’re implicitly ascribing to the policy makers, but because of the policy makers.

          So then I return to my primary objectives…

          • BLiP 4.3.1.1.1
            29 June 2010 at 6:07 pm

            Correct insomuch as its not the State itself which profits, its the lobbyists and financial backers who profit directly, but the State is still sanctioning that misery = profit motive formula which stems from the concept that a country-is-just- a-big-business philosophy. They forget that business is subordinate to society as a whole.

            As to recidivism, you seem to be implying that private prison shareholders are the only players in the entire private-sector economy who are genuinely interested in reducing the number of customers? C’mon.

            • Rex Widerstrom 4.3.1.1.1.1
              29 June 2010 at 6:48 pm

              There’s a whole heap of NGOs; some of them funded solely or primarily by government and thus, alas, too beholden to the powers that be to be much use and some highly effective. There’s lobby groups like the Howard League… but nothing I can think of that meets your description of ” players in the entire private-sector economy”.

              And because they’re on the sidelines (as, essentially, am I) their impact is minimal whereas a private prison operator can, if properly incentivised, make a huge difference (and often that involves paying some of those groups to come in and work with prisoners).

              No one with a profit motive, other than private prison operators whose performance measures include reduced recidivism, wants to see crime stopped. Some, like security companies, makers of steel doors and shutters (de riguer on almost every Australian home it seems) and their ilk I’m sure positively cheer every time there’s another crime.

              Who did you have in mind?

              • BLiP …
                29 June 2010 at 7:30 pm

                Retailers, banks, transport operators, education providers – any business who wants their customer base to grow and require a safer community for it to do so. But, yeah, some businesses are happy to see more and more crime which is the reason the profit motive should be removed from the running of prisons.

                I’m interested in the contractual requirements in regard to recidivism. Do you have any examples where a private prison has been sanctioned for failing in that regard? And what would those sanctions involve – a financial penalty perhaps?

                • Rex Widerstrom …
                  29 June 2010 at 7:48 pm

                  Whew… a legitimate and intersting question but one that requires a detailed answer I don’t have the time to prepare (as ironically I’m working on a legal challenge to the smoking ban in prisons here).

                  For anyone interested in what I think is pretty much a model contract for operating a private prison, most of the contract between Serco and the WA government is available online.

                  The Schedules (the almost 1Mb pdf document) list the KPIs and the financial incentives (or penalties, depending on how you want to look at it). Amongst the performance measures are things like:

                  – number of serious assualts each year
                  – number of prisoner complaints (can you see anyone in Corrections giving a damn about that in a state run prison?)
                  – percentage of prisoners who get the rehabilitation / training they are assessed as needing

                  …and so on. For most targets, anything less than 100% results in no payment at all.

                  Sorry BLiP, best I can do right now.

                  • Bored …
                    29 June 2010 at 8:16 pm

                    Rex, interesting exchange above but I cant bring this whole issue down to managerial mechanisms, efficiencies and outcomes. None of these is exclusive to the state or private sector. Like BLiP I find there is something deeply unsettling in wedding profit to state retribution, it throws my moral compass 180 degrees out without me being able to finger the reason. Perhaps some things that seem wrong are just plain wrong.

                    • Puddleglum …
                      30 June 2010 at 11:59 am

                      Let me see if I can put my finger on it.

                      The State’s monopoly on force is (or should be) a morally onerous power. T.S. Eliot’s famous quotation “The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason” applies here. The profit motive is, ultimately, the wrong reason (the ‘last’ temptation). The ‘right deed’ is meeting whatever KPIs might be used.

                      To instrumentalists, the thinking behind Eliot’s comment appears ‘nonsensical’ (‘what could be wrong – treasonous – with doing the right deed?’). What they miss is that the ‘right deed’ is not actually separable from the motive (the ‘right reason’) in the real world (as opposed to the fantasy world of Enlightenment Rationalists)

                      What Eliot is pointing out is that, ultimately, the actual reasons for doing something will reveal themselves in a way that betrays the original intent (and, ultimately, undermines the ‘right deed’). He’s concerned with the sustainability of our moral action over the long term.

                      In practical terms, meeting KPIs can be done in many ways – some of which may actually betray the original intent. Trying to produce a profit as well as meet KPIs sets up an unnecessary trade-off (and barrier) to doing the right thing. That need for a trade-off provides a little nudge away from a focus on what matters.

                      With something like imprisoning people there should be no way that society distances itself from the awesome moral responsibility entailed (e.g., ‘we’ve fired the contractor’, ‘rewritten the KPIs’, ‘it’s the company’s job to meet their KPIs and I (the Minister) shouldn’t step in to interfere’, etc.). If recidivism rates are too high, if prisoners are being ill-treated, then we have to change that directly, and accept responsibility – directly – for those changes.

                      [Eliot’s quote was the basis for the book (and film) ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’.]

                  • BLiP …
                    29 June 2010 at 8:17 pm

                    No worries, mate. Always good to read your comments here. Thanks.

  5. Draco T Bastard 5
    29 June 2010 at 12:44 pm

    Considering the withdrawal effects I’d say that banning smoking in prisons would probably come under the term of “cruel and unusual” punishment of which there happens to be an international law, which we’ve signed and ratified, against.

    NACT, breaking the law – again.

    • swimmer 5.1
      29 June 2010 at 1:42 pm

      Absolutely it’s hard enough for people on the outside to quit. For some it takes several attempts.

      • tsmithfield 5.1.1
        29 June 2010 at 3:24 pm

        So, prisons should keep supplying heroin to heroin addicts for the same reason then?

        • swimmer 5.1.1.1
          29 June 2010 at 3:32 pm

          Maybe methodone

        • The Voice of Reason 5.1.1.2
          29 June 2010 at 4:06 pm

          Methadone programs are run in prisons, TS, so, yes, we do supply drugs to heroin addicts. Just as we do on the outside.

          • tsmithfield 5.1.1.2.1
            29 June 2010 at 4:25 pm

            OK. So we supply a substitute for the real thing with respect to heroin. So, by that argument we should supply nicotine patches to prisoners rather than smokes. Agreed?

            • felix 5.1.1.2.1.1
              29 June 2010 at 5:00 pm

              We don’t supply smokes to prisoners at all. So no, your logic doesn’t follow at all.

              • tsmithfield …
                29 June 2010 at 7:04 pm

                We don’t supply heroin either. But as VOR points out, methadone programs are run in prisons. So the analogy does follow. You need to think a bit more felix. If you want to be pedantic, you can replace “rather than smokes” with “to assist in the withdrawal from smokes”. There, happy now?

                • felix …
                  29 June 2010 at 10:22 pm

                  No it doesn’t. Heroin is illegal. If you and your nat buddies decide to outlaw cigarettes then you might be getting closer to a valid comparison.

                  You’re still miles off though.

                  You’re really not very good at this. Go back to your first comment (5.1.1) and see if you can see where you left logic behind.

                  • tsmithfield …
                    29 June 2010 at 10:48 pm

                    1. Draco Bastard: “I’d say that banning smoking in prisons would probably come under the term of “cruel and unusual’ punishment of which there happens to be an international law, which we’ve signed and ratified, against.”
                    2. On that basis, if prisons withhold an addictive substance (legal or illegal) they should provide a legal substitute to reduce withdrawal symptoms.
                    3. Nicotine patches are a legal substitute for cigarettes that will reduce withdrawal symptoms when cigarettes have been effectively made illegal for prisoners.
                    4. Therefore, withholding cigarettes cannot be seen as “cruel and unusual” punishment because there is a legal substitute for cigarettes that are to be banned.

                    • BLiP …
                      29 June 2010 at 11:27 pm

                      2. On that basis, if prisons withhold an addictive substance (legal or illegal) they should provide a legal substitute to reduce withdrawal symptoms.

                      Yes! Very good, that is where you left logic behind. You are attempting to equate a legal substance with an illegal substance. Informally that’s called comparing apples with oranges, an entry-level logic fallacy.

    • Rex Widerstrom 5.2
      29 June 2010 at 4:01 pm

      Actually Draco, ratifying an international treaty means nothing unless it’s provisions are individually and specifially codified in statute by the signatory. So say our learned judges.

      I know this, incidentally, because I’m representing a prisoner who is challenging the WA Corrections Department’s “Smoking Reduction Policy” before the State Administrative Tribunal and am spending this week researching the law on such things.

      We can’t even take the action on human rights grounds (unless we do so under Commonwealth law) because there is no state legislation protecting human rights*. The fact that Australia has signed international covenants on human rights generally and the rights of prisoners specifically means, therefore, nothing.

      Because WA does have an Equal Opportunity Act we’re forced to restrict our ambit to the fact that male and female prisoners are treated differently – no doubt because of the fear that the males would be more likely to riot, the restrictions under which they smoke are far more lax.

      Which doesn’t make NACT’s lack of respect for treaties signed in good faith any the less appalling, I might add.

      * At this stage Federal action isn’t being contemplated due to financial constraints. I’m working pro bono and the prisoner concerned has already received dire warnings from the judge about the burden of costs should she lose at state level.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1
        30 June 2010 at 12:38 am

        That depends upon the country although I think you may be right about NZ in that respect.

  6. marsman 6
    29 June 2010 at 12:59 pm

    Private prisons and Three Strikes are just a few examples of the neoliberal scams being visited on NZ by the Nact glove-puppets.

    • Bored 6.1
      29 June 2010 at 2:57 pm

      I vote that the glove puppets, accompanied by TS and Santi be “sent down” to do field research into this issue. Up close and personal with the others in the cell, for a suitable duration aswell.

    • logie97 6.2
      29 June 2010 at 11:09 pm

      correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Lucky Strike a brand of smokes?

  7. Lindsay 7
    29 June 2010 at 4:08 pm

    The state system in the UK sometimes ‘retoxifies’ heroin addicts prior to release because too many risk overdosing and death when freed. And NZ inmates can and do receive methadone while incarcerated. So they will be granted their heroin substitute but not tobacco. That’s consistency for you.

  8. The Voice of Reason 8
    29 June 2010 at 4:17 pm

    It’s just occured to me that Collins’ quoted reason about possible legal action on passive smoking is not about the current situation in prison, it’s about double bunking.

    Obviously, such a court case would have more chance of succeeding if the complainant was forced to spend their days locked in a metal box with a smoker, rather than the current situation where there is more physical seperation between prisoners and less direct or indirect exposure to smoke.

    Still, the great thing about this proposal is that guards will be able to supplement their earnings by selling fags to the prisoners, as they will still be able to bring their own ciggies in with them when they start a shift. Gee, I love the free market.

  9. SHG 9
    29 June 2010 at 5:21 pm

    There is nothing in New Zealand – NOTHING – like the all-pervasive racism that exists in Australia, particularly the treatment of Aboriginal people. New Zealand is a touchy-feely non-racist utopia by comparison. In NZ it’s racism when someone uses the word “darkie”, but in Australia no-one blinks an eye when some drunken rednecks run an Aboriginal down and kill him for kicks. It’s not even regarded as a serious crime. And when an Aboriginal dies while in police custody? Shit, that’s just what Abos do isn’t it?

    If you leave a dog in a car with the windows closed you can be prosecuted, but if you cook an Aboriginal man to death that’s just like, whatever, no crime committed.

  10. Rharn 10
    29 June 2010 at 5:53 pm

    There is something inherently wrong when a private company can make profits out of other peoples misfortunes.

    • Paul 10.1
      29 June 2010 at 6:00 pm

      You mean like my mechanic charging me if my car engine blows up, or my surgeon charging me to fix my knee…

      • BLiP 10.1.1
        29 June 2010 at 8:22 pm

        Did the government force you to buy a car . . . did the government make you break your knee? Your logic isn’t.

        • Paul 10.1.1.1
          29 June 2010 at 8:48 pm

          Did the government force you to break the law? Whose logic is flawed?

          • BLiP 10.1.1.1.1
            29 June 2010 at 9:02 pm

            By failing to provide equal opportunity and real path ways out of poverty then, yes, the government forces people to break the law. Once imprisoned, does the prisoner have a choice of which prison to go to or whether or not he’s going to bother with prison at all? Your logic fails on the presumption that prisoners have the same choices you do.

    • Rex Widerstrom 10.2
      29 June 2010 at 6:06 pm

      Yikes, I’m going to start sounding like big bruv… 🙂

      Committing a criminal act of sufficient gravity to land you in jail isn’t a “misfortune” (though your life circunstances which caused your criminality may well be).

      Yes there are lots of people in jail who oughtn’t to be there, and ought to be repaying society in society, but their crimes weren’t “misfortunes” either.

      “Oops, that bloke ran into my fist… 27 times”. “Look, that money just fell out of her bank account into mine, I never touched it”. “I was walking past this car when the door sprang open and I tripped and fell in”. No, these are acts of criminality which impact directly or indirectly upon a raft of victims including the offender’s family.

      So the private prison operator stands to receive money for imprisoning someone only when that person commits an offence against someone else. But that’s when we as a society can make a choice. Do we pay the private operator (or demand our state corrections agency) make that person’s life as unpleasant as possible?

      Or do we say instead that we want to see them well treated and genuinely rehabilitated; equipped with the skills they need to enjoy a life without crimninality once released? And pay according to the operator’s ability to deliver those results?

      If we do it that way, the private prison operator isn’t “making profits from misery”, they’r making profits from turning someone’s life around, which benefits not only them but their family and the wider community.

      • logie97 10.2.1
        29 June 2010 at 10:46 pm

        Now let’s see – Judith Collins is concerned about the health of what sector of society?
        Say again?
        If her reasons are genuine then this must be one of the richest examples and actions of “Nanny State” and it’s being imposed by what party in politics?

        Or it is another example of a “look we’re getting tough on the crims…”
        Yeah, sounds much more like it and in keeping.

      • Draco T Bastard 10.2.2
        30 June 2010 at 12:43 am

        Well, in theory, we should make the decision that provides the best outcome for the least price and that is, invariably, not through private companies out to make a profit. The profit itself is an added cost above and beyond what it cost to provide that service (otherwise known as a deadweight loss).

      • swimmer 10.2.3
        30 June 2010 at 9:19 am

        .

      • mcflock 10.2.4
        30 June 2010 at 12:47 pm

        “If we do it that way, the private prison operator isn’t “making profits from misery’, they’r making profits from turning someone’s life around, which benefits not only them but their family and the wider community.”

        assuming 100% of contracts meant that 100% of prisoners found prison enjoyable and rewarding, then the corporation would still be profiting from denying somebody else their innate right to freedom. Yes, society out of self protection chooses to limit the prisoners’ rights, but there is still a major threshhold crossed when somebody else profits from it. Paying people to limit the rights of others is regrettable but unavoidable – we need police and prison officers, as well as soldiers etc. Paying corporations to do so (especially bearing in mind the track history of the marketplace) is both regrettable and avoidale.

Links to post