OK. I thought you were referring to the morality of working while in person as opposed to idling. Given your comment, it seems like you weren't---and yet your previous comment seems to imply it. So why refer to private prisons as "nothing more slave labor camps" while public prisons could just as easily be "nothing more than slave camps"?
I now understand that you were criticizing the incentive structure of prisons, but it didn't seem that way.
> Moreover, the taxpayer still ends up footing most of the bill for private prisons
I would therefore not call them private prisons. Perhaps, crony prisons or quasi-public prisons?
> In a private prison, an inmate who finds Jesus/Buddha/etc and becomes an honest citizen is a blow to the bottom line.
How can this be true while tax payers are simultaneously footing the bill? Moreover, isn't a large part of the comments in this thread about how there is an incentive structure in public prisons to keep more prisoners? (The correctional officer unions.)
> in state-run institutions, they at least have a budgetary incentive to moderate sentences, rehabilitate, and reduce recidivism.
That kind of makes sense. But when there are unions, and the jobs of union members depends on the number of prisoners, it becomes much less clear.
Very true, and equally applicable to many other "private" companies (Lockheed-Martin comes to mind).
> How can this be true while tax payers are simultaneously footing the bill?
Private prisons (that include inmate labor) charge from both ends: per-head to the taxpayer (ostensibly at a lower rate than if the state handled it in-house), and per-hour to businesses seeking cheap labor. State prisons have only the first incentive, with the countervailing force of finite tax revenue.
Also, the prison guard unions have the same incentive to lobby (and/or support the lobbying of their parent corporation) regardless of who signs their checks. I would claim that union influence and lobbying is a constant in either case.
> But when there are unions, and the jobs of union members depends on the number of prisoners, it becomes much less clear.
Agreed. It is bad policy and a waste of taxes in either case.
I now understand that you were criticizing the incentive structure of prisons, but it didn't seem that way.
> Moreover, the taxpayer still ends up footing most of the bill for private prisons
I would therefore not call them private prisons. Perhaps, crony prisons or quasi-public prisons?
> In a private prison, an inmate who finds Jesus/Buddha/etc and becomes an honest citizen is a blow to the bottom line.
How can this be true while tax payers are simultaneously footing the bill? Moreover, isn't a large part of the comments in this thread about how there is an incentive structure in public prisons to keep more prisoners? (The correctional officer unions.)
> in state-run institutions, they at least have a budgetary incentive to moderate sentences, rehabilitate, and reduce recidivism.
That kind of makes sense. But when there are unions, and the jobs of union members depends on the number of prisoners, it becomes much less clear.