The spike in crime started in the 1960s. Incarceration rate started ramping up in the 1970s. Drug war started ramping up in the 1980s. Private prisons started ramping up in the 1990s. https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.factch...

Your theory of causation (kickbacks from private prison companies cause harsher laws and more incarceration), though popular, doesn't explain the data. If you look at the ordering of events, what makes more sense is actually the opposite causation. Crime started going up in the 1960s due to depopulation of the cities and exporting jobs. Drugs got blamed as the bogeyman, which got the drug war started in the 1970s and 1980s. Fed up with skyrocketing crime, people voted for tough on crime laws (by huge margins and often in public referendums rather than legislation) in the 1970 through 1990s. And the last step in the chain, in the 1990s and 2000s, was private companies springing up to take advantage of the massive growth in need for prisons.

One need not posit a theory of causation here to have a legitimate concern about the role of private industry in influencing the criminal justice complex.

In fact, one could take all of rayiner's assertions at face value and still share GP's concerns.

There are many many examples where private, for profit industry may not have nefariously instigated some governmental program, but surely fights to expand and continue it.

For example, we need not think that WWII was entered at the behest of a nascent aero-defense industry in order to boost revenue, but look what happened. (and ask that lefty Dwight Eisenhower, who coined the very term "military-industrial complex" in a warning speech to the republic as he left office)

Similarly, the utter buffoonery of our health care "insurance" industry is directly a consequence of some mid-century tax code finagling which made health "insurance" a deductible pretax employee benefit. Did those who would someday run the "blues" collude to create that system in some plot? No, but once it was well entrenched, the lock-in started with big money and big influence.

Did a bunch of far sighted conspirators get together to create the mortgage GSEs so that decades hence they could dole out lucrative sinecures? No, but once in place... etc.

The debunking of loosely reasoned talking points is, of course, the brand promise of a rayiner comment, but in this case he goes too far. There most certainly are self-perpetuating loops in government-business symbiote combinations and to deny them is willful blindness.

You're taking to events, that are 15 years apart, and tying them together. But I've given you another event that's closer on the timeline, and you deny it's connection.

The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act was passed in 1970. Nixon pushed drugs as "Public Enemy #1" in 1971. The DEA was founded in 1973. All of these things were done/created to chase drugs. To imprison people who were associated/profited from drugs. All of these things coincide with the prison population inflection point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#/media/File:US_in...

The recent revelation that the Nixon administration focused on associating subversives (black people and young educated white kids) with negative "illegal" actions (black people with drugs and young white kids with communist/socialist) only underscored my argument. Especially if you take into account things like the CIA association with the Contras. The government had/has a hand in making certain segments of society illegal and imprisoning them.

I agree, the public supported a tough on crime approach. They supported it with Nixon, Bush Sr. and even with Clinton. But the government told/tells people what crime is. And it is fact that a lot more "crime" came to our attention at the start of the drug war. A drug war that happened to take place in "problem"/"subversive" communities. A drug war that happened to take place when an agency in our own government, which was tasked with stoping subversion, had it's hand in moving drugs into those same communities.

Move the drugs, lets the drugs proliferate, let the increased police presence from the drug war quell subversion.

The fallout was the prison industrial complex and the private prison industry.

I'm not saying that the private prison problem came first, but at this point they damn sure have enough power and money to make sure that they're not going away any time soon.

Does it need to be the main cause (or even a cause at all) of the initial jump in incarceration rates for private prisons and their lobbying (and incentives in general) to be objectionable? There's a group of relatively influential people and businesses who have a direct economic incentive to prevent the rehabilitation of prisoners and to lobby for harsher penalties across the board. At a systems level, I'd argue that needs fixing.

I didn't say that private prisons aren't a problem worth fixing. But every time private prisons get trotted out as the explanation for the problems with the justice system, it's yet another lost opportunity to understand the real problems.

CCA isn't the problem. They're just opportunists. Part of the real problem is all the parents and teachers shrieking "just say no!" all through the 1980s and 1990s who voted dutifully for three strikes laws, "probation reform," etc. The other part of the problem is Americans: we're the most violent people in the developed world, with crime rates that are, even after decades of decline, several times higher than in Europe.

> CCA isn't the problem. They're just opportunists.

I agree totally.