I do not Like Private Prisons

About a week ago, I had some thoughts on why I do not like private prisons. Sunday, the Salt Lake Tribune ran a story, with people expressing some of the same thoughts. So, I pull my comments from a the email I sent myself from work, and rework them.

I do not want a private prison in Utah.

Reason? Where you put your carrots, determines which direction the donkey moves. For private prisons, the carrot is, of course, to make money. I can only see three places where private prisons can make money: 

One, from the government, which means they have the incentive to squeeze as much money as they can out of the government. Not being someone who likes government spending , I don't like that. 

Two (the second place private prisons can turn to for money), from the prisoner. Now, the prisoners aren't coming in as willing customers. It is not like they're saying, "I'll give you $31,000 if you'll be so kind as to hold me in your prison for a year." Oh, some good might come of private prisons, as far as them trying to make money off the prisoner, for private prisons have more incentive to make the prisoner work, and I do like the idea of prisoners working, instead of idling away watching TV. The problem is that private prisons will have more incentive to profit off the inmate's labor, to pay the prisoner but pennies on the dollar for work that is done.

It has been said private prisons turn the prisoner into a commodity, and I agree. The primary way for prisons to make more money becomes that they must incarcerate more people, so they become a lobbying force for legislation that results in more people being placed in jail. 

Three (the third place private prisons can turn to to increase their profits), from the employees. It would seem private prisons would pay less, in order to maximize their profit margin. I'm not altogether against that, and this place for private prisons to make money does not offend me as much as the first two, still, I am not sure I like our prison employees making less money.

There is another way the carrot placement bothers me with private prisons, and this one bothers me a lot. With the prison focused on making money, less emphasis will be placed on reformation.

I like rehabilitation. Rehabilitation already is not the priority I wish it were. My friend, a former prison guard, flat out tells me rehabilitation doesn't work. He tells me studies say it doesn't. Well, I don't care what the studies say, I still believe we should be striving to reform the prisoner. Seems we should never seek anything less. If we are always failing, and have no success ratio at all, it might be that we just aren't going about it right.

So, again, where is the carrot? I do not believe a prison with a for-profit motive is inclined to seek to reform for the prisoner. I suppose financial incentives could be established, paying the prison for those they reform, and perhaps by designing the system that way, you might even swing me over to liking private prisons, but that not being the way things are currently set up, private prisons have little incentive to rehabilitate the prisoner. I imagine a public facility feels more responsibility to bring about change, even as it is that we refer to government workers as public servants. Private managers have no such carrot. When they come to work, they are charged with turning a dollar. That is their focus. It seems much more the focus of a private contractor than of a public worker. 

Private enterprise is wonderful, but that doesn't mean it belongs everywhere, and it doesn't mean we take it where it doesn't belong. The glory of private enterprise is competition, and I'm doubting this will either add any of that to our prison system or be appropriate, even if it does.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/02/15/20120215arizona-private-prisons-slammed-by-report.html

http://www.doc.state.ok.us/offenders/ocjrc/97_98/Cost%20Effectiveness%20Comparisons.PDF

The People Spoke this Past Week; Will Our Leaders Listen?

Wait, wait, wait! Before we let go of the news out there this past week, consider that story about how the Administration is closing down the White House tours, and how the topic became a Twitter event, with people coming up with alternate ideas, ways to save instead of closing off the White House tours.

My friends, this might be more significant than you think. Why? Because -- just looking at the suggestions off the top and not having really looked into them -- some of these ideas look really good. They are significant, worthy cuts.

I mean, maybe the people have spoken and our leaders should listen. Don't we believe in "government of the people, by the people, for the people"?

There was the SuperCommittee that came up with the Sequester thing. These government-types squirreled themselves away and conjured up the best ideas they could come up with, thinking and thinking and debating and debating . . . but not agreeing on any good cuts. So, they simply said, "If nothing else comes up by March 2013, then these cuts will begin to automatically take place. We don't really like them, though."

Well, in one little week of Twitter campaigning, the people came up with some great ideas of their own. (Well, some were from congress members.) If we respect the people, shouldn't we implement some of these ideas?

I'm waiting for a congress member to stand up and say, "My fellow legislators, we have just heard from the people. They've got some great ideas on where to cut. Their ideas are as good as ours. So, I'm introducing legislation right now that will implement 17 of these ideas."

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/1367/0/SequesterThis-Twitter-users-suggest-budget-cuts-to-save-White-House-tours.html

Case in Point: The Kay Mortensen Murder

Fewer guns, fewer murders -- so I contend. Case in point: In 2009, Martin Bond and Benjamin Rettig went looking for some guns. Bond was friends with BYU professor Kay Mortensen and knew Mortensen had a stash of guns.

So, they drove over to Mortensen's. When Mortensen recognized Bond, they slit his throat.

You can argue that guns don't kill, people do. But, the thirst for guns also kills. The presence of guns creates a danger that would not be there without the guns. Maybe guns don't kill, but the presence of them does lead to death. We have a phrase, "The more, the merrier." I would say that in the case of guns, we could say, "The more, the hairier." I do not favor gun regulation. But, I do wish we, as a people, of our own volition, would buy and possess fewer guns. 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865574931/Life-without-parole-ordered-for-man-who-murdered-retired-BYU-professor.html

What Once was 'Amnesty' is now 'Pathway to Citizenship"

Have you noticed that what once was called "amnesty" is now being dubbed "a pathway to citizenship"? It almost seems that "amnesty" was such a dirty word, and we had sworn so much that we would never go that route, that we have had to come up with different terminology if we are going to go ahead with providing a way for those who are illegally in the United States to have citizenship.

"Amnesty" or "pathway to citizenship," either way, what is so wrong with forgiving someone who simply lacks their paperwork? Forgiveness is not such a bad thing, and forgiving someone for not having paperwork  is not such a bad thing to forgive a person of. 

My Argument Against Moving the Draper Prison

Dear state representative:

Would that you would not vote for SB72.

I don't like SB72 because it calls for the new prison to be a private one. Private enterprise is wonderful, but that doesn't mean we should drag it into everything, sometimes going where it might do more harm than good.

I don't like it because it is a spending bill. With a $600 million price tag, it is definitely a spending bill.

I don't like it because it calls for federal money. Uncle Sam is broke. He owes his creditors $16.5 trillion. At a time like now, why run his bill up higher?

I don't like it because once that land is sold into private hands, it is gone. You can't ask it back should you as a state come across a good public use for what some say is the best situated land in all Utah.

I do not like SB72 because once the prison is moved, there will not likely ever be a chance to locate it so close to services again. The central location is lost. There may be disadvantages to having a prison in the heart of our population, but there are also advantages. Foremost, it is close to volunteers. The volunteers serving at our prison give it much advantage as they act as roll models and help reform the prisoners. Second, the Draper site is closer to courts, medical facilities, lawyers and other services. The cost of transporting prisoners not being cheap, I cannot understand how it is being argued it will be less expensive to operate it in Delta or Tooele.

Perhaps the move will create 40,000 jobs, but please at least question that claim before you accept it. Is that count simply a count of how many jobs will occupy the site once it is developed? If the land is not developed, is there not reason to believe the jobs will simply go to another location here in the Salt Lake and Utah counties area?

And, the dollar figure that is being attached to suggest how much this will benefit us, how much of it is accounted for by businessmen realizing profits, and land values increasing for businessmen? It is great when private businessmen make a profit, and maybe consider doing this for them, but first weigh that against the value the site has for the state, and against the $600 million cost, and the additional debt to the federal government.  I suggest the balance of the scales is against selling the Draper site.

One argument for the prison move that does have some merit with me, is that the land, once in private hands, will generate tax revenues for the state. Even that should be tempered some, though. If corporate businesses are not given this site, but are forced to other sites, the land values of those locations might increase, and at least to some extent there will be additional tax revenue generated by them, also.

The Proliferation of Guns is the Proliferation of Chance

For the same reason a lot of folks don't like a prison next to them, there's reason not to like guns.

The mere presence of the prisoners creates a danger. If one breaks out, he might just come knocking. He might want to change into clothes that are a bit less conspicous, might want to take your car, might need a hostage . . .

So it is with guns. The mere presence of guns creates a danger. They might be stolen by someone wanting to commit a crime, the teenagers might use them to commit suicide, they might tempt their owners to use them to commit a crime . . . 

The proliferation of weapons is the proliferation of chance. The more that are out there, the greater the chances they will be used. No, I'm not calling for more gun regulation, but I am saying, the more guns we have, the more problems we have. And, I do wish we, of our own accord, would own fewer.

(Altered 4/8/13)

The Day Corporate Personhood was Abolished

   Getting up that morning after the constitutional amendment passed, declaring that corporations aren't people, and stripping them of their constitutional rights, I turned on the radio to hear how a law was approved in  early morning session, saying employers could not refuse to hire someone on the basis of their inability to do the job.
   "But, we have the right to hire someone who is qualified," the corporations had argued.
   "No, you don't. As of this morning, you have no rights, not so much as the right to be weighing in with your opinion on this matter," the sponsor of the bill had responded.
   That was at 9 a.m. At 10, news broke that the court just struck down employers right to fire employees. "You have no rights," the judge declared, "except the right to remain silent."
   At 11, I wheeled back to my radio, anxious to hear the latest news, and learned a court was ruling employers would no longer be allowed to set wages. Instead, an independent commission would regulate pay for all industries, setting rates that would be fair to all employees. "But, sir, we should have the right to set our own pay rates," a corporate officer had tried to tell the judge.
   "You will be silent," the judge had responded. "You are in a court of law, and have no standing here that you should be rendered any justice. This is a court of the people and the rights of the people are reserved to the people, not to corporations."
   "But, sir, . . ." the corporate lawyer had tried to interject.
   "Be quiet!" came the reply. "One more outburst like that and you'll be hauled away."
   "You cannot do that," the lawyer responded. "I remain a person. I do have personal rights. You cannot just toss me in jail."
   "True," the judge said. "If you are to argue of your personal rights, I will listen. You have not lost those, not your personal rights. But, Mr. Campbell, I cannot have you speaking as an officer of a corporation in this courtroom. It is simply beneath the dignity of this court to be listening to something that is not even a person. Do you understand that, Mr. Campbell?"
   At noon, there was a flood of news. No more would the Catholics or any other entity have the right to argue that they should not be required to provide contraceptives in insurance policies, nor would any church ever be allowed to deny its members abortions, nor dictate to them that they should not have them.Churches would not be allowed to advertise in any political fashion, nor would any business. Corporations and other entities would no longer be allowed to buy any political advertisements. Corporations would no longer be allowed to defend themselves when lawsuits were brought against them, but, rather, would be assigned a lawyer of the people who would strip any arguments on their behalf down to only the rights they possessed as individuals, not companies . . .  and the news went on and on.
   At 1, I again turned on my radio, not imagining that anything else could be done to strip corporations of rights that they should not possess, since they were not people and since only people have rights. 
   "Breaking news," the announcer said. "We have just learned, that on executive order from the president, all corporations are now banned. The events of this morning have made it clear that corporations have no rights. And, if they have no rights, they have no stature, they have no standing, no being, and they cease to have any value to even exist. So, by order of the president, all corporations are hereby dissolved. All vestiges of the corporations are hereby transferred to the people. The people are hereby free from the corporations. They  are no longer encumbered by them. From this hour on, the people will answer only to themselves, and no longer to the corporations. Corporations are not people, and this nation has today freed itself of corporate personhood
   I stared down at the rug, contemplating it all. It sure seemed the whole thing had gotten quite out of hand. As I reflected on the argument that corporations are not people, and therefore have no rights, I wondered what exactly we had expected would happen, if we were to declare that corporations had no rights. No rights? No rights at all?
   We should have known it would come to this. 

(Index -- Stories)