The operator of the first private prison in the US came to speak at a class of mine back in the 90s. They provided a minimum-security facility in an old hotel in Denver. The owner was very sincere, they honestly believed that they could provide a better experience for the prisoners, and they did. The focus was actually on rehabilitation, they were able to relax a lot of the rules for good prisoners that state and federal facilities were not. Some inmates could go to school during the day or hold down a job. The owners could make $50-70/night per room operating as a hotel or $140/night as a prison. They made money and were able to provide better care than most government facilities. She was absolutely appalled at what the industry then developed into.
I don't think they are necessarily a moral hazard by nature - like charter schools, there is the possibility of having something good come from private industry, as well as things not so good. I don't know what the systemic obstacles are that need to be overcome, however. State and federal prisons did not used to be as much the over-crowded, brutal institutions they have become in the last 50 years, perhaps the problem is not so much with private prisons per se.
I think they are if they're a public company. It doesn't matter if the original founder of the company has great intentions. Sooner or later they'll be squeezed out in favour of someone who prioritise profits for the investors.
The problem is profit motive which is what drives private industry and is why some things should generally be divorced from making a profit. Same for charter schools. And it’s a moral hazard because it’s “hazardous”, it creates the possibility for danger but doesn’t require it so in that sense it is exactly a moral hazard.
It’s the private ownership model that we’ve seen abused again and again.
This is one of those situations where the warm fuzzy anecdote is overpowered by evidence that scaled the model is rife for abuse.
At scale, yeah a dozen voting fraud stories here, and there. But mathematically we can show that it’s largely been working . Whether the candidates we get are “ours”, gerrymandering, and gaming the electoral college are aside from the fact the math on Election Day has largely worked out as one would hope.
The same is not true given a macro view of private prisons. Profits are going up, so is over crowding, incarceration rates, the result is racially and financially biased, we get more uptight with offenses to fill beds (Google it, it’s not rocket science, there’s history of bias), and it feeds a cottage industry of work that’s essentially reiterating daily to workers at these places we should just treat each other like animals. Go home, have your light beer, and watch news, that’s a good boy. Come back tomorrow.
Note too how “profit is up” “inequality is up” are more of those types of math results. They say something in numbers entirely without considering how that acts as a forcing function on the populace. We’ll just paper over it with rhetoric about protecting individuality and how yours matters most, and forget about how our culture literally is profiting from taking it away from others that need not be in that position
Some mathematicians have suggested upward of 25% of inmates may be innocent because of inequities in the justice system
Private prisons are a big bright mathy spot that shows clearly those inequities.
Private prisons are a major problem because of the authority that is delegated.
In the US, the government derives its authority to govern (and by extension, the justice system derives its authority to imprison and punish criminals) only by the collective consent of the people.
It's the same reason private police and private courts are a big moral problem - they are in a position of authority over people that only government to whom the people have consented should be.
It's not a straw man, it is fact. Parent post wasn't saying this was no big deal, just pointing out correctly that there are more fundamental issues in play - like qualified immunity and the cultural racist cancers we suffer from that demonize poor and brown people and fetishize the military and police. Private prisons are awful. Any sane ethical person must agree with that. But calling out that it isn't the root of the issue is far from a straw man. It is a rallying call that the fight is far from over (!!)
A strawman argument is when you restate someone's argument in a way that's stupid, then you refute the stupid argument. Or in the extreme case, argue against an argument that the person never made. In both cases, you're not arguing against the other person, you're arguing against a straw man that you made up. Hence the name.
It's still a logical fallacy, just a different one. Fallacy of relative privation applies.
NIT: I think you mean red herring. A red herring fallacy is misdirection with irrelevant information. A straw man is a type of red herring which specifically involves misrepresenting the original argument.
A strawman is when you misrepresent an opposing position or argument to make it appear weaker than it is, and argue against the weak version. Fighting an opponent made of straw which was created in order to be defeated.
(Similarly, a weakman is when you seek out someone who genuinely holds a weak (easier to argue against) version of the position you wish to push against, argue against this weak version, and act as if you have argued against the stronger versions.
Neither of these appear to be what has been done here.
This is absolutely not straw man. Just because one changes prisons from "private" prisons to "state" prisons doesn't change the fundamental issue of putting humans in cages.
The issue is not "private prisons", it's incentive structures that are not aligned with what our goals should be.
Currently, private prisons are generally paid a flat rate per prisoner. Since they make profit per prisoner, that means they want more prisoners. They are incentivized to discourage positive outcomes and fewer prisoners, because that means less profit.
If instead private prisons were paid by some sort of rehabilitation metric, things would change very quickly. For example, if you paid more per prisoner to prisons with low recidivism rates post-release.
Capitalism works great for efficiency, you just need to make sure you have the right incentive structure in place, in order to make sure the thing you are optimizing is the thing you actually want to optimize.
Would you say this is true outside of the US as well? Does the moral hazard get introduced with lobbying, or do you find it to be problematic on its own?
