5 ms·

yes! which is _the_ driving factor behind the US prison system with its private prison labor facilities. there is zero financial motivation for the state for

• sokoloff 2mo ago
  Are you suggesting that the state turns a net profit on prisoners, making more from their labor than the full cost of their incarceration? That seems…unlikely.
  • none2585 2mo ago
    Not the state but the companies that run the prisons and those that contract the workers to work at an extremely low wage.
    • sokoloff 2mo ago
      What’s the financial motivation for the state then?
      • compsciphd 2mo ago
        to lose less money on the prisoners? i.e. its not a good motivation to increase the number of prisoners (even if one looses less money per prisoner, more prisoners will mean more loss), but it does motivate investigating ways on how one can minimize the loss on individual prisoners.
      • none2585 2mo ago
        I wasn't claiming there was a financial motivation one way or the other simply stating the actors who do turn a profit with regards to the US prison system. The explosion of incarceration and the private prisons resulting from that largely come from "the war on drugs". The book The New Jim Crow is pretty good if you're interested in the topic.
      • atmavatar 2mo ago
        For the state itself? None. For state employees (i.e. representatives, judges, etc.)? Some get kickbacks. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal See: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dhs-contractors-told-white-house-officials-asked-pay-corey-lewandowski-rcna263744 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dhs-contractors-told-wh... Alas, the "kids for cash" scandal was such a big news event that it dominates the results for any search you'd do on the subject of private prison corruption, but it's hardly the only example.
      • generj 2mo ago
        The state as a whole does not have a financial motivation. The interests of the criminal justice system on the other hand is heavily financially benefited from the current state of affairs. More incarcerations means more judges, more lawyers, more job security. Moves to correct this are labeled as “soft of crime” and surely my opponent Congresswoman Y isn’t pro crime?
      • insane_dreamer 2mo ago
        in many cases the motivation is not financial, it's racial; modern-day Jim Crow
      • scarecrowbob 2mo ago
        It's possible that you're genuine in your confusion here; it is, however very hard for me to believe that there are people who genuinely don't understand that when the state spends money it -goes somewhere-.
      • Brian_K_White 2mo ago
        Irrelevant. There doesn't need to be any. "What's the financial motivation for the state" is way too blinkered and makes at least 2 different false assumptions. There are other motivations besides financial, and it doesn't have to be the state's own motivation for the state to end up doing something. Countless government policies and programs exist which give no legitimate benefit to the state or the people, no legitimate motivation, financial or otherwise, yet they exist anyway because they do benefit and motivate someone, financially or otherwise, who has some mechanism of influence to cause it to happen. This is almost like asking "Why would anyone do something bad?" Gosh golly why indeed? 517,000 reasons and 124 new ones every day.
        • sokoloff 2mo ago
          Relevant in that the directly upthread poster argued there was “zero financial motivation for the state for prevention or rehab or any other activities to reduce imprisonment rates”, which I claim is incorrect.
  • froh 2mo ago
    I get how you could read it that way, and of course the state as the thing that is collecting taxes and paying whatever does not profit. and the state as all citizens, including those affected by gang and drug related violence also would benefit from dong things differently. it's those who benefit off the current prison labor system who lobby to keep it running, and they make it seem "natural" and "without alternatives"... and "the state" (as the tax collecting entity) pays for the prisons and the inmates while the labor "providing" companies benefit off the labor. it's a very very clever system. enslavement without being called such. and I agree, no, "the state" (as the totality of citizens) doesn't benefit. only "the state" as the entity that's controlled by lobbyists and _pretends_ being by the people, for the people, that has no motivation to change this.
• anonymars 2mo ago
  Related: https://newjimcrow.com/about/excerpt-from-the-introduction https://newjimcrow.com/about/excerpt-from-the-introduction "Jarvious Cotton cannot vote. Like his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great-grandfather, he has been denied the right to participate in our electoral democracy"