Should private prisons be outlawed?

[John Dibble]

Why should they be? I have no problem with the notion so long as they cost the state less and meet government regulations in terms of facilities and treatment of prisoners.

[John Dibble]

This came to me after the story about the judges who were accepting kickbacks from private prison companies to sentence kids to their juvenile centers for minor sentences. After that sort of thing it's pretty obvious why prisons for profit is just a bad idea.

Then the judges and those who bribed them should be punished according to the law - bribery of a public official is illegal. The legality of private prisons doesn't change that. The problem this exposes is insufficient oversight. (or perhaps it is sufficient given it was caught)

[John Dibble]

or just get rid of prisons.

capital punishment for every criminal then?

No, for non-violent criminals we can just cut off their hands.

[John Dibble]

Yes, but so should public ones.

The only penalty for a crime should be restitution--or death, in case of murder, because restitution is just impossible there.

For arson, would you burn the perp's house down?

No, they'd have to pay for the destroyed property, and a whole lot more in punitive damages due to the affective value of the things lost (I'm assuming it's a house that would've been burned now, not a factory or something).

And if they have no money and no job, what then? And since we wouldn't be incarcerating them in any fashion, what if they decide to do it again and again?

[John Dibble]

Yes, but so should public ones.

The only penalty for a crime should be restitution--or death, in case of murder, because restitution is just impossible there.

For arson, would you burn the perp's house down?

No, they'd have to pay for the destroyed property, and a whole lot more in punitive damages due to the affective value of the things lost (I'm assuming it's a house that would've been burned now, not a factory or something).

And if they have no money and no job, what then? And since we wouldn't be incarcerating them in any fashion, what if they decide to do it again and again?

Then they should become indentured servants to the victims for enough time to pay restitution.

And how exactly are you going to enforce that? There would be nothing stopping them from leaving.

And you forgot to answer the second question - what's to stop them from repeat offending?

[John Dibble]

What's to stop someone who's left prison from re-offending.

Aside from the usual things outside of prison, nothing. But they can't re-offend while still in prison, unlike your proposed system. Your system allows them to run loose with little fear of real punishment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You clearly haven't thought this through. Do you expect the victim to hold the criminal at gunpoint 24/7 without ever sleeping? And what if the criminal is physically superior to the victims - you don't see a strong criminal harming his victims again?

Let me make this a little more personal for you - suppose someone decided to burn down your house, smash up your car with a sledgehammer, and stalk your female family members. They have no money to pay you restitution, so the courts make him your indentured servant. Can you seriously say you would want that nutjob to be anywhere near you or your family?

[John Dibble]

When you think of indentured servitude, you're thinking of the antebellum South. There is no reason things have to be like that in modern times. Many crime-victims could just pool their criminal servants together, hire some guards, and put them to work in some labor intensive industry, like stone-cutting.

So let's get this straight, you want to get hire out guards privately and have them watch over the criminals to prevent their escape and ensure they work. How is that not a private prison?