http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061021/ap_on_...mhuBHNlYwNtdHM-
Because of overcrowding in the prisons, the state of California paid a private company to house the extra inmates. Reading about this trend in the prison system deeply concerns me. The biggest concern I have is that introducing profit into the prison system could encourage the politicians to turn America into a police state.

Here's how this could happen. If a company like Correctional Corporation needed more inmates to make a profit, it could lobby the state governments for more criminal laws. And we know that politicians are easily susceptable to lobbyists. And thus, criminal laws could be written not for public safety, but for private profit.

The other thing that sickens me about the prison industry is the fact that politicians would turn to prisons for economic growth. Because America allowed its manufacturing to go overseas, people are now trying to become lawyers or get that "Criminal Justice" degree.

So the questions for debate is this
1. Does America have too many criminal laws like the drug laws?
2. Should the prison system be privatized or kept in public hands?

1. Does America have too many criminal laws like the drug laws?

We have too many drug laws- that is a great big "duh". We simply do not have the resources to find, prosecute and incarcerate the numbers we already have, and it is diverting resources away from getting "real" bad guys that ACTUALLY harm others. This is a no-brainer for everyone but the religious right it seems.

2. Should the prison system be privatized or kept in public hands?

On to the real question now- private prisons are a disaster- not for the reasons that you stated though- you see, when you inject a profit motive- wages go down, maintenance costs are overlooked, or minimized, and those profits goes into the pockets of guys that really should be in the prisons, not overseeing them! ( I am trying to find the link on ADN right now to the news story where the Alaskan inmates simply pulled up the fence posts to the Arizona private correctional center that didn't want to turn on the electric fence, because the electric bill was too high and cut into profits! - after our several year "experiment" with private prisons- found out the cost savings weren't cost savings at all- just a good way to put money into a CEO/lobbyist's pocket.

The wages for a correctional officer in AK is about 25 bucks an hour- the wages for the Arizona private correctional officer is about minimum wage- around 7.50 an hour. sounds like a huge savings, right? Well gee, those 7.50 an hour wages are exactly living wages, so those "correctional officers" ( I use the term loosely- our state employee officers go through a rigerous police academy like training, the 7.50 an hour folks get about 8 hours of training, and then make them sign a few forms that say they have actually done training that they have not) - those Arizona correctional officers have to supplement thier incomes with selling stuff to the inmates- now we are spending big bucks on all these herion addicts coming up from Arizona- if we don't send them to treatment, they end up doing more crimes, which costs even more money, to pay for the new habit they picked up (heroin is not a common drug in Alaska, and a bit more expensive than in Arizon I understand )

http://www.grassrootsleadership.org/stopp-packet.pdf

We have both Wackenhut and Cornell trying thier shenanigans up here- but those are fundamentally corrupt organizations that really should have thier CEOs in jail rather than being allowed to build them- it is just a shame that the public for a long time bought this republican *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** about how private prisons are a good thing.

http://www.adn.com/front/story/1054042p-1160806c.html

http://www.afsc.org/az/azprispriv.htm

After all the wrongdoing, payolla, hidden costs and such, Alaska is starting to get it, and scrapping any plans for private prisons- seems even conservatives can do math every once in awhile if forced to - becaise. after all this lobbying, turns out that it costs about 10 bucks more an inmate than the 17% savings that were touted

edited to add: Sorry- they are archived and fee required- but there were the 12 inmates that escaped- and it was not the first time!

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archiv..._useweights=yes

.

I believe your fears are a bit far-fetched here. While the evidence does point to a cozy relationship between private prison lobbyists and particularly state legislators, the relationship has amounted to sweetheart deals to build prisons, not necessarily to pass new laws to fill those prisons.




1. Does America have too many criminal laws like the drug laws?

I like the libertarian notion of differentiating between victimless crimes and all others. I don't agree with completely wiping out a large number of those crimes off the books, nor do most Americans. I agree that possession of marijuana or other drugs should be punished with fines and treatment, as opposed to stiff sentences and the like. Our current path isn't working at all as what we are doing now is creating temporary baby-sitting centers that do a poor job at "correcting" the criminal and their behavior.



The argument for privatization is that the job can be done just as effectively, only cheaper. The problem with this is that it isn't necessarily the case. In Florida, two private prison companies overcharged the state $13 million dollars for work never carried out, maintenance that never occurred, and cost of living adjustment to employees they never received. I read through some research on both sides and one of the common denominators as to why private prisons pull a profit is their ability to hold down wages and pay fewer fringe benefits. You do pay for what you get and that's why there are some interesting lawsuits regarding private prison staff.

Prisoner dies after medication is withheld from him at a private prison.

FL. sues private prison for medicaid fraud.

Private youth facility sued for failing to provide services to mental health patients and failing to guarantee their safety.

Colorado privatization not quite as it appeared to be.

The GAO had an interesting study as well. They lined up private and public prisons in a number of states to determine profitability. In looking at four side by side comparisons, two sets of public and private institutions were roughly the same in cost to the state. One set featured a private prison that was more profitable, while the fourth featured a private facility costing more. A study in Texas determined a 14-15% savings rate in going private, but the study was rather skewed as the comparison was made to hypothetical public prisons, not actual ones.

No and you have to be joking if you think making more laws would easily done by the people who ran private prisons. We put more people back on the street sooner than any other industrial state. We do not even come close to enforceing our own laws (like immigration for example). We NEEd more prisons so that cities and states will stop dumping criminals out on the street having served only a fraction of their sentences, because they need the room.


Privatizing anything saves money and usually the job is done better to boot. Of course regulations and inspections need to be carried out as in public facilities but the idea is a good one.



Oh ya? I tend to agree if you are speaking about marijuana but not the other more harmful drugs like heroin ,coke and speed. These drugs and their wide distribution do two bad things. They hurt the people who overuse them (and they end up sick and the rest of us pay) and they force many to a life of crime to support their “habit”. If you think there are no costs to society here tell me why. Alcohol is part of the problem as well of course.

CR
We have too many drug laws- that is a great big "duh". We simply do not have the resources to find, prosecute and incarcerate the numbers we already have, and it is diverting resources away from getting "real" bad guys that ACTUALLY harm others. This is a no-brainer for everyone but the religious right it seems.


Oh ya? I tend to agree if you are speaking about marijuana but not the other more harmful drugs like heroin ,coke and speed. These drugs and their wide distribution do two bad things. They hurt the people who overuse them (and they end up sick and the rest of us pay) and they force many to a life of crime to support the “habit”. If you thing there are no costs to society here tell me why.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/public...economic_costs/


Alcohol and drug abuse disorders carry with them a number of specific, well-recognized sequelae. Among them are the following:
• Health consequences and their effects on the health care system;
• Criminal behavior, either as a means of individual support, participation in the drug trade, or violence; and
• Job loss, financial destitution, and subsequent reliance on society's safety nets.


http://www.nida.nih.gov/economiccosts/Chapter1.html#1.1

ever consider the true value of a law if so many people violate it so frequently?

I'll take that argument seriously the day Booze goes on the same list and is treated the same way legally.
I have had numerous encounters with drunks that could have been serious in terms of harm done. Both while driving and in public.

I cannot remember when I was ever hassled by someone on heroin.
As for stoners -- you can't FIX stupid, deal with it.

Drunks however are at the very least a nuisance if not a danger to society every day after 5 and all weekend--lets not even start with the holidays which are nothing more than excuses for people to get plowed and then get behind the wheel.
Run a comparison on assaults related to booze and those to any other drug -- or even combined. How many deaths from drunk drivers versus the combined totals of drugs.
run some tallies on Rapes and sexual abuse fueled by booze.

Yeah drugs are the Danger to society!

Ri-ight!

Prohibition on Drugs and the idiot inspired War on Drugs is a failure and benefits no one but the people who profit off the illegality -- from the Drug Lords and Dealer right over to the government agencies that make their profit in the never-ending joke of a war trying to "stop" it.
It is the WOD that creates the illicit market for these things and the billions that fuel the drive to control the market.
The only people who benefit are the Drug Lords and the Government Drug Czars.

Prisons filled with people who are simply getting the same exact waste of time high you get with booze, just criminalized because some self appointed moral majority people cannot mind their own damn business and stay out of people's private lives is there any difference in the stupidy. Condemn it all but the one they probably partake of -- wouldn't want to actually walk what they talk.

Like there is any difference in the loser who drinks or uses a needle. they are both equally pathetic and a waste.

But lets build more prisons and incarcerate more people--gets some people their personal high of subjecting others to their wishes and gives them a sense of power they don't actually have in their sad lives.

Saying so, don't make it so. The first three posts of this thread are chock full of examples where cost efficiency was found not to be the case, not to mention the quality of service nose-diving faster than John Kerry telling a joke.

Absolutely, laws that should be abolished include but are not limited to: every law that restricts two adults from having sex, every law that prohibits an adult from doing what they like with their body, any law that is on the books that is based on someone's view of "morality".


Surprise answer in 3...2...1...It should be kept in public hands. Quite simply, crime and punishment belongs in the public sphere, not in the private one. The government is best equipped to handle issues of crime and punishment because it is, in theory, not motivated by any outside forces. The private sector, obviously, is motivated by the profit motive, something that should NEVER mix with issues of crime and punishment.

Two things, the argument your making is a great one if it is being made in support of privatizing the medical system...not for prohibiting drugs. The "they hurt people who overuse them" argument has no bearing. The government has no Constitutional authority nor moral authority to prevent an adult from doing what he or she wants with his or her body, none. If we are willing to regulate some things because they are unhealthy, but not others, then we are being hypocrites.

CP

Not to sound glib, but can you prove this? I know that privatization is sometimes cheaper, and that it is sometimes better, but I can rarely find an example where a privatization scheme accomplishes both. Now, I've asked this question dozens of times across dozens of threads and nobody has been able to show me a single study or review that states that privatization is inherently more efficient, so I won't be offended if you don't either Ted, but you should be aware that your argument has very little credibility without it.

WADR I was speaking in general here. And doing so I am sure you know that in general privatized goods/services quickly become cheaper and better than the same products/services supplies by “regulated” industry or goverment. Air travel is a perfect example. For decades the regulated airline industry opened its books to the government regulators to justify ever high fares. But within 6 months of “deregulation” air fares dropped 50% and are to this day far lower than they were under regulation (in today’s dollars). And air travel is safer and more timely than it ever was under regulation. The flying public saves about 5 billion a year.

So not to sound glib myself Joe I would be very surprised if you could come up with a privatization scheme that did NOT produce a better product or service when implemented on a significant scale.

An example shown throughout history is Communism. Having the State run everything exposed the weaknesses and inefficiencies of government in the Soviet Union. We see it in Cuba. Now I'm not saying that privitizing always saves money and is more efficient, but I think that it's safe to say that private organizations that are subjected to the forces of the free market run better than organizations that are not. Look at any economically Communist country in history and it shows us this truism.

That said, some things are better left in the government's hands, and prisons are one of them. What happens if the company goes belly up? This is national security on another level and the citizens of the United States should demand guarantees when it comes to that security from their elected government, not a contract with a private company.

So how to end the overcrowding of the prisons? Instead of privitizing the prisons, we might want to consider privitizing education. As Big Mama once said, "It's education or elimination."

It's clear, however, that flying while the airline industry was regulated was certainly a better experience. Airlines in the 1960s and early 70s provided a comfortable service, and I think most would agree that if you're not flying first class in the US today you are generally treated as cargo by airline personnel.

Additionally, through the "wonders" of the free market hardly any airlines are currently profitable. It's considered a good thing if a company even makes black ink for a quarter. While the cost of an airline ticket has gone down (which you'd think due to technological advances alone this would be a natural transition), the quality and value of flights has also slid along with it. Most airlines no longer serve food, almost all of them charge money to watch their in-flight films.

I agree somewhat but not completely. I fly a good deal and if we take away the 9/11 changes that would have been required in any case, and which by the way is the main reason for the red ink over the past few years, flying is generally as good or better. The flights are fuller because the lower prices allow more people to fly buy the flights now are generally on time and the service is good. Competition will make flying even better as we go forward. Fly jet blue and watch TV in your seat for free. Coming is internet access as well as cell phone access on the flight.

Thus the experience will improve and 5 billion a year is substantial. Also thousands of jobs have been created in the industry because of the increase in the number of people flying. Jobs not only in the airlines but at Boeing and the hundreds of companies that supply pars to them.


There is less food but it was bad before deregulation. What there is now is much better and some carriers allow you to buy (good) food on the plane.

I would try and find another example besides the airline example. According to ConsumerReports.org, the low prices that occurred after the industry was regulated were already occurring during periods of regulation (ie the 1970's). Additionally, Consumer Reports states that "sellers have gained disproportionate power over buyers" through fine prine and other legal loopholes. For instance, the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 saved the airline industry from having to follow individual state laws, which prohibited airlines from practices such as bait-and-switch advertising. However, the Supreme Court upheld airline companies' immunity from such practices. Also, deregulation stifles competition because the relaxed laws on mergers and tursts allows other companies to absorb smaller companies. Alfred E. Kahn* (who was a proponent of airline deregulation) even agrees that customer service has declined greatly since deregulation.

Privatizing industry is not always the answer, and this can be evidenced with numerous other examples: utilities industry (Uh, Enron?), the telecommunications industry (hello? Remember the problems with AT&T and the Bells?, or what about WorldCom?).

Privatizing prisons is also not a good idea. There are private companies that are hired to staff correctional facilities, and many of them end up terribly. Greg Palast wrote an excellent article detailling Wackenhut's understaffing and cutting corners in state prisons.



You can read the full article here: http://www.gregpalast.com/free-market-in-human-misery

*Also a reference for my paraphrasing Alfred Kahn:
Kahn, Alfred E. "Airline Deregulation." The Library of Economics and Liberty 28 June 2005.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AirlineDeregulation.html

It is generally, though not universally true, that privatisation lowers prices, though this is often overstated. In the 1990s a lot of national companies were privatised and their prices dropped (sometimes a lot), and everyone assumes now that this is a result of private versus national industry. That is mostly false. The reason these prices dropped so much is because of competition. As well as being nationalised a lot of these industries (telephone, Airline, etc) were monopolies. Demonopolisation accompanied privatisation and that was responsible for a large part of the drop in prices.

However, as I said, it is generally true that private companies run cheaper than national companies, and this is a simple result of their necessary focus on the bottom line. What is NOT at all true is the assertion that private companies run provide better products or services than national companies. In fact the opposite is usually true, and for the exact same reason. Private companies have a necessary view that starts and ends with the bottom line, while national companies set a certain standard of serviceor product which they can run regardless of the bottom line.

Privatising the Royal Mail is a perfect example. Prices dropped slightly, but services were slashed and output suffered terribly. It was simply not possible for a private company to keep the same standards of service for the prices charged.

For any industry, you need to look at what the population wants as an output to decide which system is better. If profitability is critical, then private industry is better. If a certain standard of product, which may not be achievable while maintaining profitability, is critical, then national industry is better.


Last note, all this assumes oversight and lack of corruption. Looking at nationalised industries of the former USSR as an 'example' of nationalisation is foolish, as that system had VAST other problems as well which prevented most of its industries from functioning. Looking at the USSR as a model for nationalisation is like looking at Enron as a model for privatisation.

Umm... maybe the Canadian mail scenario is true, but in the US, the USPS is the least efficient for sure, and not always the least expensive. Funny enough, even the US Postal Service uses Fed Ex to carry its overnight and priority mail. (Through 2007)

While I agree with parts of your post, something you said is inherently not true in the United States, and generally anywhere else a governmental monopoly exists. You insinuated that national companies set a standard that can be run regardless of bottom line.

This is flawed in that generally any product or service wanes in the face of little or no competition. My favorite example is the Department of Motor Vehicles in the US. Getting a driver's license, registering a vehicle, or other related tasks take an ETERNITY. It's impossible. Conversely, in recent years, most states have privatized inspection of motor vehicles. This has made the process FAR BETTER, both in terms of cost to the state as well as consumer experience.

The general consensus is that if I realize that there is a direct competitor down the street or in the general vicinity, selling the same or a similar product, I have to beat their product/service somehow. If I sell it cheaper, but the product is less valuable, I'm no longer in direct competition. The issue is that prisons have no competition at all really.

This is 100% true with the correctional system in general. I will say that I have limited personal experience, but do have some professional experience with both state as well as local prisons in Louisiana. I worked for Sherwin Williams as I worked my way through college. During the 2 1/2 years I was there, I garnered a contract for two state prisons and two parish prison systems. We sold paint obviously, and sundry products. The issues that arose with prisons were even worse than those encountered by selling to the Federal Government (i.e. Barksdale AFB, etc). It took multiple forms, numerous contacts, and far too much work to get a small 15-20 gallon order to a jail. The most important thing to note is that the employees could've cared less that it was a hassle. This is the general issue in prisons. Costs are rarely considered to be an issue at the local level, quality basically centers around keeping prisoners in, and the end result for the correctional system in general is repeat crime.

I believe that we could easily use an "inspection sticker" scenario with some portions of the general correctional system, and come out far ahead. For instance, we could allow drug related criminals, or maybe juvenile (non violent) criminal rehabilitation and supervision to be outsourced as a start.

I believe that there are three main reasons this would be beneficial.
1. Currently- our prison system seems to work as a school for future crime as opposed to a rehabilitation system. Outsourcing would allow us to have clearly defined goals that a private company would be tasked to achieve (and would create innovative ideas to get there).
2. Private companies would find it easy to alleviate "red tape" and "bureaucracy". These inherent issues have costs. If you have 5 extra forms to be processed, someone has to process them. Someone has to supervise these processors, etc. Get it?
3. The market would dictate success, and results would be demanded. Right now, we have a somewhat cynical view of this part of US government.

Obviously, the judicial system will still need to be a function of government, just as registering vehicles and managing driving rights, etc. However- why not outsource portions?

Actually the Royal Mail is British, but whatever. Canada post however is another good example, of privatisation which resulted in a reduction of service over what was offered under a nationalised scheme.

Now, please notw what I said, this is generally true, certainly not universal. Something can be badly run no matter if it is private or public. There are some public companies which are disgraceful, same as some private companies. Also, please note that I was never talking about government monopolies. Monopolies are in general bad, regardless of who is running it. Private monopolies price gouge, and public monopolies grow ineficient due to lack of competition pressure. Your 'rebuttal' of this deal with something I never said.

CU is a useful but notoriously left wing magazine (which I read). I have no clue what “sellers have gained disproportionate power over buyers" through fine prine and other legal loopholes” means but the data say consumers SAVE over 5 BILLION a YEAR. That’s Billion with a B. I have seen little “bait and switch” ads – can you post one of these evil things?

I fly a lot and I can tell you the only thing better about regulated flight was that the planes were over half empty. They were not as timely and the food was bad (more of it though) and that’s it. Deregulation PROMOTED competition even though, as in any industry, it allowed companies to buy other, smaller companies.

Bottom line is we save LOTs of money through deregulation.

Overall I cannot think of a regulated industry/service I like. Can you? Post office? Your Registry of Motor Vehicles? Deregulation is always better and then it is the governments JOB to insure free and open competition. When that is done consumers get better products/services at lower prices – period.

I have worked for state goverment for 20 years- and every single attempt at privatization or actual success has cost the state, over the long run, far more money than it ever saved.

Profit and the prison system are two ideologies that are 180* out of sync- they simply don't work. They have to make money- that is what they do, and will cut corners when profit is threatened.

Even something you would think as simple as privatizing the kitche where I work was a study in corruption and waste. On the face of it- seemed like a good idea- our kitchen costs the state about an average of 9 bucks a meal- and the private firm bid 7 bucks- lot's of money when you see how many meals they serve. Looks good- right? Wrong- You see- the state just took the total of all the food and costs, subtracted how many meals were served- and came up with thier 9 buck figure. Well, you see, the nw bidder didn't figure it as a body- but as a SERVING- thier portons were impossibly small, especially since so many of our folks are horribly malnourished. So, they are all on double portions orders- meaning- it now costs about 14 bucks per person. Of course- the political appointees knew this- they got prime jobs with the corp after their guy was not elected.

I think, with the exception of halfway houses and other transition homes, private prisons should be made permanently illegal. They are corrupt, safety hazards and unethical, as an industry, and I can't even think of one thatis a good corporate citizen.

Certainly we can find examples where privatization doesn’t work esp. on a small scale and where there is corruption in the selection of the “private” vendor. In general though the record is clear. Private companies out perform “state” owned entities in every way. Cost, quality, and service. This is true here and around the world.

Efficiency in other industries has nothing to do with the debate topics. The efficiency of private jails is what is being debated here. There have been posts after posts laden with links about lawsuits against privately owned jails, not to mention how they cut corners in providing services. That fact has yet to be disputed beyond unproven general, knee-jerk, ideological sloganeering.

And we can find a large body of information on state (non private) prison abuse. The fact that private prisons do not have “fringe benefits” or the pay scale that state facilities do has nothing to do with it. Private facilities need to be monitored just as state facilities and IMO they have fewer abuse issues, not more. Do you have data that says otherwise? This is the typical knee jerk reaction against anything that is “privatized”. The fact that the employees make less than the state workers does not mean that they do a poor job.


From your link:

A growing body of research finds that contracting out corrections reduces costs, improves service quality and yields other benefits as well. Critics who initially argued that contracting with private companies could not save money have been proved wrong. First, the fact that contracts exist implies that the contracting agencies are confident that cost savings are being realized. Many statutes even require tangible evidence of savings before contracts can be awarded. Second, private sector fringe benefits, especially retirement contributions, are less generous for private employees than for government employees. Third, the private sector does not have the costly bureaucratic requirements that government imposes on itself in employee hiring, firing, promotion and procurement of goods and services. Fourth, private prisons are designed to operate efficiently with fewer personnel in a way public prisons are not.
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba191.html

And yet even within the vastness of California's penal system, Corcoran State Prison managed to stand out. It first attained notoriety a few years ago when allegations began surfacing that guards at the prison had forced prisoners to stage "gladiator" fights in the prison yard, and that these same guards had regularly shot those prisoners who did not perform adequately. Amnesty International has reported that at least seven prisoners were shot dead at these fights. Esquire magazine added, in September of 1999, that "forty three more Corcoran prisoners were shot and seriously wounded, some paralyzed."
Other reports on Corcoran tell of the prison's so-called "Booty Bandit," a very large and sadistically violent inmate
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/mar2000/cali-m29.shtml


"The extraordinarily harsh and restrictive conditions at Red Onion were designed for very violent inmates," said Jamie Fellner, associate counsel at Human Rights Watch. "Unable to find enough `worst of the worst,' the Virginia Department of Corrections is simply sending men to the prison who could be safely confined elsewhere."
The New York-based group, which has investigated prison conditions all over the world, also criticized the Department of Corrections' refusal to grant it access to Red Onion.

"It seems clear why the Department doesn't like outside scrutiny," stated Fellner. "What's going on at Red Onion is a discredit to the state

http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/04/19/usdom851.htm

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/5/1...isonAbuseRecord

To: To the State of Michigan, Huron Valley Facility Staff, the USA media, Medical professionals, Human advocacy groups,and all concerned people worldwide
This petition is to bring aware the abuses going on at Huron Valley Facility, Michigan USA. We demand an investigation at the facility, and investigation of the staff. These men are not at this facility to be neglected, abused, beaten, degraded, humiliated, and medicly neglected. The following are quotes from an inmate who was at HVF, at written in a personal letter:

"I was sent to Huron Valley Facility, HVM. As you may know the D.O.C. has now turned this prison into a mental health facility, meaning there is no general population prisoners there.
http://www.petitiononline.com/HVFabuse/petition.html

http://detnews.com/specialreports/2005/pri...fficialsvow.htm

http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/womeninprison.html

http://www.jeffdicks.org/abuse.htm

They are so horribly corrupt, so awfully maintained, that, even in a uber-conservative state like Alaska- we even have decided it does not work- you dont' save money- you just shift it to somewhere else- it will always cost X to incarcerate someone- no matter what a private prison does- it can't get around that, so they tailor thier results to thier marketing-

for instance, as soon as we hear a prisoner, as part of our out-sourcing of prisoners program- is coming from Arizona, we go ahead and start herion addiction paperwork testing and such- because, we know there is a rampant drug problem in private prisons, that dwarf anything the public system has EVER had- why? A guard making minimum wage has to supplement his income somehow- and, since the senior guards are the ones doing it- they have to follow along, or go away.

Privatization DOES work for industry that really isn't public health and safety related- because it is a good thing- the profit motive- and dovetails nicely into the regular capitalistic ideals.

The same justification we have for police NOT turning a profit is the same with many goverment things- Prisons and the profit motive are COMPLETELY, MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE- because you HAVE to cut corners to make a profit- and public facilities are not bound by the profit motive.

We are now even re-evaluating our own kitchen- this is the third year in privatization- and guess what? They aren't able to make a profit enough to stay in business working at a public facility.

This is nonsense CR read my post above. Some of the worst prisons in the world are right here and run by STATES not private companies. I would eb willing to bet the private ones have fewer problems overall.