So, it's perfectly fine to personally enrich yourself by:
A) Working as a prison guard/admin (in which your job security/salary increase with incarceration);
B) Hiring released convicts (in which your model becomes increasingly profitable as more of the labor force is branded as less hireable due to greater incarceration);
C) Supplying goods to prisons (in which your specialization at the problems of delivery to prisons becomes more valuable with greater incarceration)
D) Lobbying for tough-on-crime laws due to the above incentives, as e.g. CO interest groups have done [1]
But running the prison itself? "That's too much, man!"
Frankly, the anti-private prison movement is, IMHO, very confused. Numerous groups financially profit from the prison system even when they're publicly run, and such prisons produce the same egregious incentives to encourage more incarceration. (See the three-strikes lobbying.)
It seems like a way to exploit anti-market, anti-profit bias to get the masses enraged at an enormous red herring -- which, by the way, is still only 6-16% [2].
We do need prisons. Some people are too dangerous to be allowed in society, and this will likely always be the case. So they must be guarded. (Technically, you're also guarding everyone else from them.) If it's immoral to work as a prison guard, it's also immoral to work as a policeman, or a firefighter, or a street cleaner - as your job becomes more secure when there are more criminals, or house fires, or litterers. Patent nonsense.
Hiring released convicts is also a good thing, in general - people go to prison, pay their debt to society, and come out. They need jobs, now.
And a person is going to need a bed sheet, a tooth brush, and toilet paper whether they're in prison or free.
D, I agree with, is wrong. And especially when done by the folks who do C.
There is a big difference between profiting from people versus profiting indirectly through supplies that a public prison uses.
The incentives are totally backwards. The state should be encouraging people to not be in prison, but instead we have monetary incentives in place for putting more people in prison and keeping them there.
Not true -- the incentives are the same, and we see how they have led CO orgs at public prisons to lobby for longer sentences, exactly the danger that's somehow unique to private prisons. And I explained how the same incentives exist for all the other private orgs that specialize in servicing prisons.
A) Working as a prison guard/admin (in which your job security/salary increase with incarceration);
B) Hiring released convicts (in which your model becomes increasingly profitable as more of the labor force is branded as less hireable due to greater incarceration);
C) Supplying goods to prisons (in which your specialization at the problems of delivery to prisons becomes more valuable with greater incarceration)
D) Lobbying for tough-on-crime laws due to the above incentives, as e.g. CO interest groups have done [1]
But running the prison itself? "That's too much, man!"
Frankly, the anti-private prison movement is, IMHO, very confused. Numerous groups financially profit from the prison system even when they're publicly run, and such prisons produce the same egregious incentives to encourage more incarceration. (See the three-strikes lobbying.)
It seems like a way to exploit anti-market, anti-profit bias to get the masses enraged at an enormous red herring -- which, by the way, is still only 6-16% [2].
[1] http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/the_undue_influen...
[2] https://www.aclu.org/issues/mass-incarceration/privatization...