Friday, March 11, 2011

Damnit, Hawaii

Despite Governor Abercrombie's promise to bring all Hawaiian prisoners back to the mainland from the private prisons they're currently housed in, such a feat may not be possible. Turns out Hawaii doesn't really have the capacity to house those couple thousand guys. So they're seeking bids to house them in private prisons. Thankfully, they're at least looking to have a company build or operate one in Hawaii, which is good for prisoners to maintain connections with their families. But I still can't support housing them in private prisons.

9 comments:

  1. Why would it be better for the HI inmates to be housed in a private prison in HI as opposed to a private prison in AZ? There are corrupt staff in HI prisons too, and there is violence in HI prisons as well.

    One problem that exists in HI facilities that doesn't exist in AZ facilities is the problem of inmate family members working at the prisons. With the shoddy hiring practices employed by most private prisons it wouldn't surprise me at all if many of the people who got hired at a private prison in HI wound up being inmates' family members who apply for the jobs just so they can bring contraband to their incarcerated family members.

    At any rate, public employee unions are strong enough in HI that there won't be any privately run prisons operated there. There's also scant hope of CCA or GEO being able to turn a profit in HI's inflated economy. Both of these factors probably led HI to send its inmates to private prisons in AZ in the first place. If I can figure that out then HI's governor already knows it, so clearly the man is just blowing smoke when he talks about bringing these inmates back to HI.

    A better question is why do you believe that HI inmates are better off in HI? Most (if not all) of them committed their crimes in while they lived in HI, and I'm sure that they had plenty of daily contact with all their loving family members while they were engaged in their criminal lifestyle, so on what do you base your assumption that they're better off in HI? Last time they were in HI they became felons...

    Also, I believe the current penological model is a proven failure. Time has shown us that making a felon live with other felons rarely causes that felon to change. The only difference between a privately run prison and a publicly run prison is that a publicly run prison loses money while employing the failed strategy, and a privately run prison turns a profit while employing that same failed strategy. If I'm not mistaken, the private prison winds up paying a lot of taxes that the public facility doesn't pay, so you could even make the argument that a private prison benefits its community in ways that a public facility just can't.

    What I'm really wondering is, are you really concerned about inmates' well being, or are you just concerned about public sector employees?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi - thanks for your comment! I'll try to go through each bit.

    First and foremost, I don't think a private prison in Hawaii would be any better or worse than a private prison in Arizona, Alaska, or anywhere else. My point is not that, upon entering a private prison in Hawaii, they'd receive better care or security. The only real benefit they would have is closer contact with their friends and family.

    Now, I know you may not think that's a great thing, but hear me out. The majority of these guys are going to be released at some point or another. Think about it - most prisoners don't go in with either a life or death sentence. So they will be returning to Hawaii at some point, as free men. Would it not serve the best interests of the state of Hawaii to have these men be as productive and upstanding a group as possible?

    Studies have repeatedly shown that one of the best ways for prisoners to transition out of prison is to have them maintain contact with friends and family while incarcerated. This helps them feel a connection to their loved ones and to the community they left. It helps them establish transition plans far in advance of what the prison does, and plans that are usually more comprehensive.

    I understand the concern about family members bringing contraband in as guards, but that happens in Arizona, and every else, as well. Drugs are practically omnipresent in prisons, private and public. I don't know that the source of the drugs matters that much.

    As to your point about them returning to criminal activity, that won't become an issue until they leave prison. And if they are able to maintain better contacts with friends and family while incarcerated, hopefully that transition out will be smoother and they can return to society.

    Finally, as to your point about the difference between a public and private partnership, I don't really agree that that distinction is the only one. For me, it really comes down to a matter of principle. Arresting, prosecuting, sentencing, and punishing those who violate society's laws is a function of government. We have our government in place, theoretically at least, to protect us from harm others may cause, including criminals. Taking away individual liberty and incarcerating people is a responsibilty so important that it seems unprincipled to contract away to a profit-driven enterprise. The government is in charge of removing unwanted people from society, and it is the government's responsibility to keep them away from us. Further, introducing the profit motive into the equation opens the door for the myriad abuses prevalent in the industry, which by your comment I can see you're familiar with.

    Or, think of it like this; name an instance in which tax dollars are supposed to be used for private-sector gain. Tax revenue, when spent, is never intended to garner profits for either the government or the private sector, and rightfully so. That's not what tax dollars are intended for; they are intended to serve as a source of revenue for our government to keep us safe in the various ways it has devised. So I'm not comfortable with giving tax dollars to private corporations who turn a profit while abusing human rights.

    I hope that sort of answered your question, though I imagine anyone who tried to read that entire thing passed out a few times in the process.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'd be interested in reading the studies you mentioned on lowered recidivism among inmates who maintain contact with friends and family, can you recommend some of them?

    I'm skeptical about studies. For instance, if I was going to speculate about how those studies might be skewed, I'd say that maybe inmates who received visits from friends and family while incarcerated were more likely to have had close relationships with friends and family PRIOR to being incarcerated, and that perhaps this made them members of a group who would be more likely to successfully rehabilitate. Maybe inmates who didn't receive visits while incarcerated didn't have close relationships with friends and family PRIOR to being incarcerated, and maybe that made them members of a group who were less likely to successfully rehabilitate, regardless of where they were incarcerated.

    In other words, maybe inmates who receive visitors are also inmates who are already more likely to successfully rehabilitate. Maybe receiving visitors doesn't CAUSE rehabilitation, maybe receiving visitors and having the potential for rehabilitation are two things that just happen to coexist in inmates who make successful returns to society.

    Maybe NOT receiving visitors and NOT rehabilitating are two traits that coincide in certain kinds of inmates who don't make successful returns to society.

    It's miraculous when career criminals make good and turn over a new leaf. It's almost as miraculous when a first time offender serves his first sentence and doesn't wind up coming out worse (that is to say, MORE criminally inclined) than when he first went in. I truly believe that our current model for punishment is the result of the powers that be not knowing what else to do. I think that they're out of ideas, and that locking people up allows them to say that they're doing something to protect us by separating the "bad people" from the rest of us, and offering paltry rehab and education programs to inmates allows them to also say that they're trying also trying to help inmates become "good people". I guess that's why I'm less concerned about the problem of private prisons and more concerned about the problem of prisons in general.

    I agree with you that the profit motive leads to privateers cutting corners to maximize profits, and that it probably leads to problems like poor medical care and intentional under staffing. While a government run facility has a purer motive for their operation, I don't believe that governments do a significantly better job protecting the public and ensuring the safety and rehabilitation of the offender. Privateers have to live with the possibility of losing their contracts and/or not being awarded new contracts when they botch the job, and that motivates them to do at least a good enough job to not get into too much trouble. On the other hand, your typical county detention center or state department of corrections doesn't really have to worry about losing their "contract", which leads to a climate wherein management and staff may feel like they don't have to do much more than just enough to get by. About the only thing that a government run corrections system has to fear is privatization, so maybe you could make the argument that the existence of a for-profit alternative actually improves the quality of public sector corrections. I know that's stretch, and I'm kinda just playing Devil's advocate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'd be interested in reading the studies you mentioned on lowered recidivism among inmates who maintain contact with friends and family, can you recommend some of them?

    I'm skeptical about studies. For instance, if I was going to speculate about how those studies might be skewed, I'd say that maybe inmates who received visits from friends and family while incarcerated were more likely to have had close relationships with friends and family PRIOR to being incarcerated, and that perhaps this made them members of a group who would be more likely to successfully rehabilitate. Maybe inmates who didn't receive visits while incarcerated didn't have close relationships with friends and family PRIOR to being incarcerated, and maybe that made them members of a group who were less likely to successfully rehabilitate, regardless of where they were incarcerated.

    In other words, maybe inmates who receive visitors are also inmates who are already more likely to successfully rehabilitate. Maybe receiving visitors doesn't CAUSE rehabilitation, maybe receiving visitors and having the potential for rehabilitation are two things that just happen to coexist in inmates who make successful returns to society.

    Maybe NOT receiving visitors and NOT rehabilitating are two traits that coincide in certain kinds of inmates who don't make successful returns to society.

    It's miraculous when career criminals make good and turn over a new leaf. It's almost as miraculous when a first time offender serves his first sentence and doesn't wind up coming out worse (that is to say, MORE criminally inclined) than when he first went in. I truly believe that our current model for punishment is the result of the powers that be not knowing what else to do. I think that they're out of ideas, and that locking people up allows them to say that they're doing something to protect us by separating the "bad people" from the rest of us, and offering paltry rehab and education programs to inmates allows them to also say that they're trying also trying to help inmates become "good people". I guess that's why I'm less concerned about the problem of private prisons and more concerned about the problem of prisons in general.

    I agree with you that the profit motive leads to privateers cutting corners to maximize profits, and that it probably leads to problems like poor medical care and intentional under staffing. While a government run facility has a purer motive for their operation, I don't believe that governments do a significantly better job protecting the public and ensuring the safety and rehabilitation of the offender. Privateers have to live with the possibility of losing their contracts and/or not being awarded new contracts when they botch the job, and that motivates them to do at least a good enough job to not get into too much trouble. On the other hand, your typical county detention center or state department of corrections doesn't really have to worry about losing their "contract", which leads to a climate wherein management and staff may feel like they don't have to do much more than just enough to get by. About the only thing that a government run corrections system has to fear is privatization, so maybe you could make the argument that the existence of a for-profit alternative actually improves the quality of public sector corrections. I know that's stretch, and I'm kinda just playing Devil's advocate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. OK so it looks like you posted a reply that somehow got deleted from here. I didn't do that (I promise! I love free speech.), but I want to re-post it because I think it's a great comment and I want to keep the dialogue going. So here is the anonymous comment that came through to my email, but didn't stay posted on here for some reason:

    I'd be interested in reading the studies you mentioned on lowered recidivism among inmates who maintain contact with friends and family, can you recommend some of them?

    I'm skeptical about studies. For instance, if I was going to speculate about how those studies might be skewed, I'd say that maybe inmates who received visits from friends and family while incarcerated were more likely to have had close relationships with friends and family PRIOR to being incarcerated, and that perhaps this made them members of a group who would be more likely to successfully rehabilitate. Maybe inmates who didn't receive visits while incarcerated didn't have close relationships with friends and family PRIOR to being incarcerated, and maybe that made them members of a group who were less likely to successfully rehabilitate, regardless of where they were incarcerated.

    In other words, maybe inmates who receive visitors are also inmates who are already more likely to successfully rehabilitate. Maybe receiving visitors doesn't CAUSE rehabilitation, maybe receiving visitors and having the potential for rehabilitation are two things that just happen to coexist in inmates who make successful returns to society.

    Maybe NOT receiving visitors and NOT rehabilitating are two traits that coincide in certain kinds of inmates who don't make successful returns to society.

    It's miraculous when career criminals make good and turn over a new leaf. It's almost as miraculous when a first time offender serves his first sentence and doesn't wind up coming out worse (that is to say, MORE criminally inclined) than when he first went in. I truly believe that our current model for punishment is the result of the powers that be not knowing what else to do. I think that they're out of ideas, and that locking people up allows them to say that they're doing something to protect us by separating the "bad people" from the rest of us, and offering paltry rehab and education programs to inmates allows them to also say that they're trying also trying to help inmates become "good people". I guess that's why I'm less concerned about the problem of private prisons and more concerned about the problem of prisons in general.

    I agree with you that the profit motive leads to privateers cutting corners to maximize profits, and that it probably leads to problems like poor medical care and intentional under staffing. While a government run facility has a purer motive for their operation, I don't believe that governments do a significantly better job protecting the public and ensuring the safety and rehabilitation of the offender. Privateers have to live with the possibility of losing their contracts and/or not being awarded new contracts when they botch the job, and that motivates them to do at least a good enough job to not get into too much trouble. On the other hand, your typical county detention center or state department of corrections doesn't really have to worry about losing their "contract", which leads to a climate wherein management and staff may feel like they don't have to do much more than just enough to get by. About the only thing that a government run corrections system has to fear is privatization, so maybe you could make the argument that the existence of a for-profit alternative actually improves the quality of public sector corrections. I know that's stretch, and I'm kinda just playing Devil's advocate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And so in response to your excellent comment, again I'll try to break it down piece by piece.

    First, here are links to the asbtracts of some articles written by researchers trying to gauge the impact of visitation on recidivism. Their findings are generally that A) there hasn't been a ton of research in the past on this (more of it has focused on the impact of programming on recidivism rather than visitation), and B) as far as they can tell, more visitation has a positive impact on recidivism.

    http://research.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/2/5/2/6/p125265_index.html

    http://convention3.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/0/0/1/1/p200117_index.html

    Next, here's a link to a discussion of the issue by Dr. Terry Kupers, a superstar in the prison reform world. Same general idea; more visitation decreases the likelihood of recividism:
    http://www.patrickcrusade.org/EFFECTS_VISITING.html

    Finally, here's a link to one of those free online research papers that discusses the topic. I'm not advocating that people utilize this type of service or even that it's a good paper, but it has a couple more sources relevant to the topic listed at the bottom:

    http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/imprisonments-effects-on-recidivism

    I understand your skepticism, and you bring up some really valid points about community/family interaction before prison and how that impacts recidivism rates. I think there's a very big and very gray area here. There's no easy metric to say, well X guy came from a broken home with bad parents so he'll recidivate no matter what, while Y made some dumb choices but has a good family and won't recidivate no matter what. There are a ton of factors that go into every situation like this, and some guys from terrible backgrounds with little to no community ties never recidivate, while some people with great family structure and value in the community will just continue to offend, regardless of the visits, programming, or whatever else they receive while incarcerated. But you make a good point about how different aspects and traits of an individual interconnect and all play a part in his chances at re-entering society (I'm just using male pronouns here, but it applies for anyone)

    ReplyDelete
  7. I do however sort of take issue with your idea of "career criminals." I think there are very few of them indeed, far fewer than the mainstream media would like you to believe (for a host of reasons, but primarily because fear sells). I think the vast majority of people in prison are those who either made a stupid decision (or a string of them), or acted out of an altered frame of mind (drugs, lust, envy, etc). I really sincerely believe in the inherent goodness of people. I don't think people want to be criminals, or even that people are inclined to just commit crimes. In fact, many would argue that our society criminalizes the actions of poor people, especially vice crimes, so that you really can't say that what constitutes a lot of crime is really all that bad for society (its impact on individuals however is still pretty severe). just take a look at Michelle Alexander's work regarding the drug war and how it is "The New Jim Crow"

    But don't get me wrong. I think prisons are an important function of society, and I agree that many people become more refined in their criminality, if not more criminally inclined, while incarcerated. that's a byproduct of a broken system. But a lot of research has gone into looking at the ages of criminal offenders, and the overwhelmiing majority of it demonstrates that most "criminals" have pretty much run the course of offending by the time they hit their mid-30s (but not all). Which makes sense, if you think about it, considering the social pressures on young kids, along with the immaturity level demonstrated by many folks well into their late-20s (criminal or not). People, criminals included, tend to mature and wisen up by their 30s and stop doing all the dumb shit they did when they were kids. It's just a fact of life. So I really take issue with when people talk about "career criminals," because I think most people in prison would not fit that mold (though for a few guys on Wall Street, that's a different story)

    I will certainly agree that the public or government-run prison systems in this country are broken, by and large. prisons suck. they suck for people who are locked up there, and for people who work there or even aruond the prison system. But I still stadfastly maintain that public prisons are better than private ones. Look at rates of escapes, assaults, and recidivism. They're all equally high, or higher, in private prisons (depending on the source of information - studies funded by the industry tend to have pretty favorable numbers).

    But simply looking at the rates doesn't tell the whole story. Private prisons, per the terms of the contracts they sign with states, are able to choose the inmates who will come to their facilities. they overwhelmingly select low-security inmates and guys without major medical issues (both of whom are cheaper to house than their counterparts). So naturally, one would expect them to have far lower rates of assault and escapes, since they house guys who are less of a threat to engage in those activities. but the rates are equal, and in many cases worse, than what a government-run prison is able to do.

    ReplyDelete
  8. government-run prisons are also much more likely to offer programming to prisoners, like treatment for drug issues and vocational/job-placement programs. the disparity is something along the lines of 90+ % of government-run prisons offering programming, but only 60% of private ones.

    As for the threat of losing their contracts, that in itself is a whole other issue. But simply put, the amount of money they spend lobbying elected officials, combined with the utter lack of transparency about any of their operating costs or procedures all but guarantees they will continue to get contracts despite a poor track record. Click on the oversight, transparency, or political influence tags for more on that.

    Finally, your point about the private sector encouraging the public sector to improve in terms of efficiency is one that has often been made by proponents of privatization. But private prisons have been around (in their modern incarnation) for about 3 decades, and I have yet to see a significant improvement in any government-run prison attributable to some competition from the private sector. Now, I could be wrong, but I doubt it. And I would challenge anyone to definitively show me otherwise. I find it hard to fathom that an industry that operates less efficiently, and with less transparency, than the government would somehow force the government to operate more efficiently. It just doesn't make sense.

    But again, thanks for your comment. I'm glad I've got you thinking and I always appreciate a good devil's advocate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Certain it was a wonderful weekend!, I am content for you!, your own attire is georgeous!

    ReplyDelete