On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:44:57 -0500, tony cooper wrote: >Profit is monetary gain. According to your premise here, anyone in >the system who gains from prisons is involved in human trafficking.
Let's be a little more precise about usage here. Profit in the sense of "for-profit" companies is monetary gain paid to investors in equity and dividends rather than to employees and vendors as business expenses. The people directly involved in the work of running the prison are generally not the people receiving that kind of profit.
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:23:42 -0500, tony cooper wrote: >That same expectation is just as much in force in a system where there >is not enough state funding. Instead of a profit goal, the goal is to >cut programs to meet budgetary requirements.
And you don't see how this is connected to the problem you acknowledge?
>I think the real problem is at the other end. It's not who runs the >prisons, but why we are filling them so fast.
In an underfunded system, the management and employees are not motivated to try to make sure the prisons fill up faster, since they'll continue to be just as underfunded. In a profit system, the company is motivated to do anything it can to increase demand for its product.
¬R / Darla: Leftovers aren't the mark of a man. \ www.bestweb.net/~notr Andrew Reid: Actually, they are, because that's how men's shirts button.
<usenet.om...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote: >tony cooper wrote: >> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:57:14 +1100, Peter Moylan >> <pe...@pmoylan.org.not.china> wrote:
>>> Tony has said, several times, that in the Florida system the people in >>> charge are political appointees. Perhaps that's why Americans are so >>> distrusting of the public sector. I can well understand that a prison >>> system run by political appointees could be just as evil as one run by a >>> private corporation.
>> Yes, it's true that in Florida - and, I'm sure, in other states - the >> top people are politicians or political appointees. Here's the >> organization: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/orginfo/orgchart.html
>> The people elect the Governor, and the Governor appoints the Secretary >> for Corrections. The Secretary then appoints the rest of the mob.
>> Secretary McNeil is an experienced and capable career law enforcement >> person. He was appointed Secretary in 2008. Governor Crist is a >> boob. His term expires next year and he will probably run for a US >> Senate seat. He is a Republican.
>> The new Governor may or may not retain McNeil. If the decision is >> made as decisions in the past have been made, it will be based on >> political considerations and who owes who what. The previous >> Secretary was only in office for two years.
>> Now its your turn. If your top man in the department of prisons is >> not a political appointee, how does he get the job?
>The people making the appointment to such a job (presuming that it >exists here) most likely include government representatives. But career >civil servants are not visible to the public, they do not disclose their >political affiliations, and subsequent administrations almost never >interfere with serving employees.
Although I was not in public service in the Department of Defense, my coworkers and I were not invisible. Few members of the public ever did, but anyone was free to telephone our office. Since the Washington bureaucracy is big, many times they had the wrong number. Our command's main operator did what she could when routing incoming calls and we did what we could when rerouting them when we didn't have an answer. --
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
John Kane wrote: > On Nov 8, 9:21 am, "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >> Mark Brader wrote: >>> Mark Brader:
>>>>>>> That's a *different* objection.
>>> C.D. Bellemare. >>>> That said, I think his point follows adequately well from yours. >>>> You said "We entrust the government with the power to punish a >>>> proven offender by imprisonment -- but they are the only ones who >>>> should have it,"
>>> Yes.
>>>> and he went on to say why: "in a democratic society" (your "we") >>>> the government is accountable to the electorate in ways in which >>>> a private firm is not.
>>> That's *his* reason; I don't think it's a strong one and I don't >>> necessarily even agree with it. *My* reason is that I find >>> objectionable the unnecessary creation of an additional class of >>> people with the privilege to do what would ordinarily break laws.
>> I see you're not going to post any more in this thread. How, then, >> can I resist pointing out that you didn't state that reason in your >> earlier post? You said:
>> "The reason it seems wrong to me is that I feel that private >> agencies, and individuals who are not agents of the government, >> should not be specially licensed to perform acts that for anyone >> else would be criminal -- in this case, it would be unlawful >> detention. >> We entrust the government with the power to punish a proven >> offender by imprisonment -- but they are the only ones who should >> have it."
>> I see nothing specific there about an increase in the number of >> groups with free passes to Violenceland, and a couple of >> statements that the privilege should be accorded only to >> governmental, not to non-governmental, bullies.
> Government bullies ? An assumption surely?
Maybe. I don't use the word with prejudicial intent, since I am a bully myself. The two most effective ways of getting what you want are bullying (I would include the straightforward offer of inducement under that heading) and manipulation: the direct or the indirect approach. Of course, everybody does some of both, but it seems to me that most people favour one or the other. If you find Goldilocks sitting in your chair, you can either tell her that she is trespassing and ask her to vacate, or you can tell her that her mother is dying over in the next county.
My use of the word was also intended to continue the theme begun with "Violenceland": that social order is maintained by making the use of violence a government monopoly.
>> Steve agreed with that, and added what >> still seems to me the most direct and cogent reason for the >> distinction. Would you be equally upset if an equal number of new >> civil servants were hired to use those powers? If a new class of >> civil servants were?
> I would not be. At least they all work for the Crown, not some > corporation that may not even be based in the country.
Nor would I; nor, I think, would Mark. They were rhetorical questions, in spite of those miserable question marks.
> Civil servants are covered by specific legislation and are > accountable in many ways. There is also the rather good chance > that they are loyal to the government.
> Employees of a contracting firm are not covered by the same > legislation nor are they likely to be particularly loyal to the > government -- in terms of doing their jobs, I'm not suggesting that > they are traitors.
> Also in terms of accountabililty if you are a civil servant you are > directly accountable to your superiors in the civil service and to > cabinet. In a private organization you are not.
As Peter indicated, the argument may have been led astray by the difference between the American system and those of most of the other countries represented here, where the civil service is politically neutral and remains largely unaffected by changes in Government, below the Deputy Minister level. I admit that that is an assumption of my own.
> I would wonder if the Ombudsman in Ontario or even the Auditor > General in the case of Federal institutions would even have the > power to inspect private operations? However this could be > addressed by appropriate legislation.
Followed by much litigation, I should think.
> It is quite possible if you as a prison manger/employee might mess > up in government terms but do okay in the company's terms so if the > local government gets a bit stroppy you can just transfer out with > no problem. No reference checks about that little riot you started > etc.
In case I didn't make it clear, let me state that I am wholeheartedly in the pro--civil-service camp. I were one myself, for many years, and my experience at work was that almost everyone was competent and dedicated to providing the public with the best service possible.
In my opinion, corporations need to be sharply reined in, and the bully in me would not be averse to seeing this emphasised with prison terms and ruinous fines for the worst perps.
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:48:31 -0500, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> > wrote:
> >On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:27:17 +0200, Steve Hayes > ><hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>But since this forum is for discussing English usage and not the ethics of > >>human trafficking, it doesn't really matter, does it?
> >Then we should discuss the "hyperbole" and how it applies to privately > >run prisons and human trafficking.
> It doesn't have much to the usage of "hyperbole", but rather with the > worldview and moral presuppositions of the one who uses it.
> For some, for-profit prisons where the main criteria are profitability and > efficiency are a form of human trafficking for profit, and morally and > ethically unacceptable. There is no hyperbole involved.
I can't see how for-profit prisons can be compared to human trafficking. The state has taken on the responsibility of keeping the prisoners in prison and taking care of them. It pays a corporation to handle that responsibility. Nobody is paying to own people.
Do you consider it human trafficking for the state to pay families to take care of children who are wards of the state? (This is a normal practice in the United States.)
As for the criteria, the state should write the contracts according to its own criteria. For instance, there should be penalties if prisoners escape or if they're treated inhumanely by the guards or each other. This way the profit motive is aligned with the state's social goals.
However, I don't know what the contracts look like. And enforcing standards of humane treatment in prisons runs into serious practical problems. But as Tony pointed out, publicly run prisons have the same problems.
I don't know how efficiently or humanely privately run prisons work in practice, but I can't see any connection to human trafficking.
> It might be hyperbole to compare for-profit prisons with handing prisoners > over to dementors, but I think that's a moot point too.
> In case I didn't make it clear, let me state that I am > wholeheartedly in the pro--civil-service camp. I were one myself, > for many years, and my experience at work was that almost everyone > was competent and dedicated to providing the public with the best > service possible.
Ah, so almost everyone "voluntarily performed work"! That was my experience and observation, as well; the necessary exceptions proved it: it was possible to be a /long/-time civil servant without being competent, or being dedicated to anything but one's own comfort. Thank goodness they were a tiny minority.
> In my opinion, corporations need to be sharply reined in, and the > bully in me would not be averse to seeing this emphasised with > prison terms and ruinous fines for the worst perps.
Not enough of either of those going around, my view.
When I was a civil servant in the justice system, those who had enforcement duties, privileges, responsibilities, or rights were called "sworn" employees. We had actually taken a hand-raised, spoken oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, its laws, and the laws and codes of every jurisdiction having jurisdiction in our areas of operation.
Do the employees of private prison- or jail-running corporations do such swearing? If not, I think they should. Why not? I bet they would if it were written into their contracts. If it isn't, why not? Would that make them more subject to "civil" oversight?
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:48:31 -0500, tony cooper > <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> > wrote:
> >On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:27:17 +0200, Steve Hayes > ><hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>But since this forum is for discussing English usage and not the > >>ethics of > >>human trafficking, it doesn't really matter, does it?
> >Then we should discuss the "hyperbole" and how it applies to > >privately > >run prisons and human trafficking.
> It doesn't have much to the usage of "hyperbole", but rather with > the > worldview and moral presuppositions of the one who uses it.
> For some, for-profit prisons where the main criteria are > profitability and > efficiency are a form of human trafficking for profit, and morally > and > ethically unacceptable. There is no hyperbole involved.
I can't see how for-profit prisons can be compared to human trafficking. The state has taken on the responsibility of keeping the prisoners in prison and taking care of them. It pays a corporation to handle that responsibility. Nobody is paying to own people.
Do you consider it human trafficking for the state to pay families to take care of children who are wards of the state? (This is a normal practice in the United States.)
As for the criteria, the state should write the contracts according to its own criteria. For instance, there should be penalties if prisoners escape or if they're treated inhumanely by the guards or each other. This way the profit motive is aligned with the state's social goals.
However, I don't know what the contracts look like. And enforcing standards of humane treatment in prisons runs into serious practical problems. But as Tony pointed out, publicly run prisons have the same problems.
I don't know how efficiently or humanely privately run prisons work in practice, but I can't see any connection to human trafficking.
> It might be hyperbole to compare for-profit prisons with handing > prisoners > over to dementors, but I think that's a moot point too.
Harry Potter?
Pat: I suppose that, for the most part, we have been discussing state prison systems (penitentiaries) in the US. In some states, the county systems may be run by very strong sheriffs (Sheriff Arpaio* in NE or AZ?), and depending on how the state/county system is set up, in Wisconsin, sentences of "a year and a day" are frequently handed down in order to ensure that the culprit is conveyed to the state system. Of course, when the state system is full to the gills, many individuals are paroled or probationed, and _then_ the sheriff gets to supervise these individuals.
*I consider this sheriff an aberration and embarrassment in these days, but with the economy going the way it is, I expect more "chain gangs" and other ways of getting work done that costs too much for ordinary labor. Frequently, road work has been done through "ad hoc" contracts negotiated by sheriffs, but with "community service" becoming part of the sentences for misdemeanors, there has been less need for convict labor a la "Cool Hand Luke". (Not that Wisconsin ever ever ever had need for such arrangements!)
<jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Nov 9, 12:36 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:48:31 -0500, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> >> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:27:17 +0200, Steve Hayes >> ><hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>But since this forum is for discussing English usage and not the ethics of >> >>human trafficking, it doesn't really matter, does it?
>> >Then we should discuss the "hyperbole" and how it applies to privately >> >run prisons and human trafficking.
>> It doesn't have much to the usage of "hyperbole", but rather with the >> worldview and moral presuppositions of the one who uses it.
>> For some, for-profit prisons where the main criteria are profitability and >> efficiency are a form of human trafficking for profit, and morally and >> ethically unacceptable. There is no hyperbole involved.
>I can't see how for-profit prisons can be compared to human >trafficking. The state has taken on the responsibility of keeping the >prisoners in prison and taking care of them. It pays a corporation to >handle that responsibility. Nobody is paying to own people.
>Do you consider it human trafficking for the state to pay families to >take care of children who are wards of the state? (This is a normal >practice in the United States.)
For profit? With dividends paid to outside shareholders?
>As for the criteria, the state should write the contracts according to >its own criteria. For instance, there should be penalties if >prisoners escape or if they're treated inhumanely by the guards or >each other. This way the profit motive is aligned with the state's >social goals.
>However, I don't know what the contracts look like. And enforcing >standards of humane treatment in prisons runs into serious practical >problems. But as Tony pointed out, publicly run prisons have the same >problems.
>I don't know how efficiently or humanely privately run prisons work in >practice, but I can't see any connection to human trafficking.
>> It might be hyperbole to compare for-profit prisons with handing prisoners >> over to dementors, but I think that's a moot point too.
>Harry Potter?
The very same.
In the third Harry Potter book the Ministry of Magic contracts out the running of prisons to dementors, who look for any excuse to steal the souls of those in their "care".
Now it might seem like hyperbole to say that a privatised prison in the world of Muggledom actually goes so far as to steal anyone's soul, but if you think about it a bit, it's not a bad analogy.
Of course in any satire there is an element of exaggeration and hyperbole, but sometimes you just can't take the mickey, and the real thing is worse than the caricature.
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:41:17 -0500, "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In case I didn't make it clear, let me state that I am wholeheartedly >in the pro--civil-service camp. I were one myself, for many years, >and my experience at work was that almost everyone was competent and >dedicated to providing the public with the best service possible.
Civil service in the US is almost completely different from the civil service in the UK and Canada. Employees of the federal government may be civil service employees, and employees of the individual states may be civil service employees, but they are not in the same civil service. An employee of the State of Florida has no standing in the US Civil Service or in any other state's civil service.
The completely different aspect is that a civil service employee in a state's system can only progress in that state's hierarchy. That employee can be hired by a different state, but its different from working up the ranks. If Florida wants to hire a Secretary of Correction, they can conduct a search (usually through an agency) or advertise in other states, but it's not the same as knowing who in the system is ready to move up. They really only know the employees in their own system. The movement between states is pretty much limited to high level jobs.
The only time (that I can think of off hand) that I would be in contact with someone in the federal civil service is when I apply for a passport, go through customs, deal with Social Security, or (shudder) have contact with the Internal Revenue Service. Probably more, but I can't think of more at the moment. I know of others, but not ones I'm likely to deal with.
Most civil service employees that I am likely to deal with are in the Florida civil service system.
tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> writes: > The only time (that I can think of off hand) that I would be in > contact with someone in the federal civil service is when I apply > for a passport, go through customs, deal with Social Security, or > (shudder) have contact with the Internal Revenue Service. Probably > more, but I can't think of more at the moment. I know of others, > but not ones I'm likely to deal with.
Some others: Going through screening at an airport. (TSA's part of the Department of Homeland Security.) Entering a national park or talking to a ranger or guide. (The National Park Service is in the Department of the Interior.) Probably a few others.
> Most civil service employees that I am likely to deal with are in the > Florida civil service system.
Yeah. State employees are far more commonly encountered.
-- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |You cannot solve problems with the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |same type of thinking that created Palo Alto, CA 94304 |them. | Albert Einstein kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
<N...@bestweb.net> wrote: >On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:23:42 -0500, tony cooper wrote: >>That same expectation is just as much in force in a system where there >>is not enough state funding. Instead of a profit goal, the goal is to >>cut programs to meet budgetary requirements.
>And you don't see how this is connected to the problem you acknowledge?
>>I think the real problem is at the other end. It's not who runs the >>prisons, but why we are filling them so fast.
>In an underfunded system, the management and employees are not motivated >to try to make sure the prisons fill up faster, since they'll continue to >be just as underfunded. In a profit system, the company is motivated to >do anything it can to increase demand for its product.
In a market-driven system like the US I can see the TV adverts: "Folks, commit the crime and do the time, and make sure you ask the judge to send you to one of EasyTime's prisons. Yes, DUI, rape, murder -- you'll be among friends in EasyTime. Don't delay, break the law today. Lifers especially welcome." -- Robin (BrE) Herts, England
>> In case I didn't make it clear, let me state that I am >> wholeheartedly in the pro--civil-service camp. I were one myself, >> for many years, and my experience at work was that almost everyone >> was competent and dedicated to providing the public with the best >> service possible.
>Ah, so almost everyone "voluntarily performed work"! That was my >experience and observation, as well; the necessary exceptions proved >it: it was possible to be a /long/-time civil servant without being >competent, or being dedicated to anything but one's own comfort. Thank >goodness they were a tiny minority.
You'll find this sort of time-server in any organisation, large or small, public or private. Often it's due to nepotism, and larger organisations can often, but not always, bury them where they can do little harm. However, I think that the "job for life" idea, common to both the civil service and large, prestigious corporations some decades ago, is probably no longer economically feasible for the latter. -- Robin (BrE) Herts, England
Robin Bignall wrote: > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:03:06 -0800, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com> > wrote:
>> CDB wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>>> In case I didn't make it clear, let me state that I am >>> wholeheartedly in the pro--civil-service camp. I were one myself, >>> for many years, and my experience at work was that almost everyone >>> was competent and dedicated to providing the public with the best >>> service possible. >> Ah, so almost everyone "voluntarily performed work"! That was my >> experience and observation, as well; the necessary exceptions proved >> it: it was possible to be a /long/-time civil servant without being >> competent, or being dedicated to anything but one's own comfort. Thank >> goodness they were a tiny minority.
> You'll find this sort of time-server in any organisation, large or > small, public or private. Often it's due to nepotism, and larger > organisations can often, but not always, bury them where they can do > little harm. However, I think that the "job for life" idea, common to > both the civil service and large, prestigious corporations some > decades ago, is probably no longer economically feasible for the > latter.
A colleague of mine has just retired on his 65th birthday, after 45 years (plus one month) with the company. As you say, that's going to be more and more unusual. Unless, I suppose, people work until they're 85.
On Nov 9, 11:34 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:17:22 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
> <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Nov 9, 12:36 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
> >> For some, for-profit prisons where the main criteria are profitability and > >> efficiency are a form of human trafficking for profit, and morally and > >> ethically unacceptable. There is no hyperbole involved.
> >I can't see how for-profit prisons can be compared to human > >trafficking. The state has taken on the responsibility of keeping the > >prisoners in prison and taking care of them. It pays a corporation to > >handle that responsibility. Nobody is paying to own people.
> >Do you consider it human trafficking for the state to pay families to > >take care of children who are wards of the state? (This is a normal > >practice in the United States.)
> For profit?
Yes, if their spending on the foster child is less than their allowance from the state plus the value of any work the child does. (I know one person who did this when she and her then-husband owned a ranch. They expected the teenagers they fostered to do ranch work, which I'm sure they would have expected of their own children if they'd had any.)
> With dividends paid to outside shareholders?
What difference does that make? Is it human trafficking if a corporation buys a slave but not if a family does?
> Yes, i would regard that as human trafficking.
...
It seems backwards to me. In human trafficking, people pay to own people. In private prison systems, taxpayers pay to have prisoners taken care of.
America used to have prisons where the inmates worked for the owner's profit. That's getting more like human trafficking, but I still don't think it would be unless the prison owners paid for the prisoners. (I don't know when that practice ended, maybe around a hundred years ago.)
> >> It might be hyperbole to compare for-profit prisons with handing prisoners > >> over to dementors, but I think that's a moot point too.
> >Harry Potter?
> The very same.
> In the third Harry Potter book the Ministry of Magic contracts out the running > of prisons to dementors, who look for any excuse to steal the souls of those > in their "care".
Got it.
> Now it might seem like hyperbole to say that a privatised prison in the world > of Muggledom actually goes so far as to steal anyone's soul, but if you think > about it a bit, it's not a bad analogy.
...
Only if government-run prisons are analogous to the Ministry of Magic hiring dementors as guards.
On Nov 8, 7:24 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:42:09 -0800 (PST), John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> >he's a professor ( chairman of dept in North > >American terms?) at the University of Bristol
> A UK "professor" is not necessarily equivalent to "chairman of dept" in > North American terms. There may be more than one professor in a > department in a UK univ. > This attempts a summary of the position:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor#Most_other_English-speaking_co...
I may be a bit more confused than before but thanks.
Robin Bignall <docro...@ntlworld.com> writes: > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:50:01 -0500, Glenn Knickerbocker > <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:23:42 -0500, tony cooper wrote: >>>That same expectation is just as much in force in a system where >>>there is not enough state funding. Instead of a profit goal, the >>>goal is to cut programs to meet budgetary requirements.
>>And you don't see how this is connected to the problem you >>acknowledge?
>>>I think the real problem is at the other end. It's not who runs >>>the prisons, but why we are filling them so fast.
>>In an underfunded system, the management and employees are not >>motivated to try to make sure the prisons fill up faster, since >>they'll continue to be just as underfunded. In a profit system, the >>company is motivated to do anything it can to increase demand for >>its product.
> In a market-driven system like the US I can see the TV adverts: > "Folks, commit the crime and do the time, and make sure you ask the > judge to send you to one of EasyTime's prisons. Yes, DUI, rape, > murder -- you'll be among friends in EasyTime. Don't delay, break > the law today. Lifers especially welcome."
The hearings when the contract is next up for renewal would be especially fun to watch. (And, of course, the legislature would immediately pass legislation such that any further such advertising would constitute breach of the terms controlling the contract, if it couldn't already be construed as reason to pull it.)
-- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Never ascribe to malice that which 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can adequately be explained by Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stupidity.
<N...@bestweb.net> wrote: >On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:23:42 -0500, tony cooper wrote: >>That same expectation is just as much in force in a system where there >>is not enough state funding. Instead of a profit goal, the goal is to >>cut programs to meet budgetary requirements.
>And you don't see how this is connected to the problem you acknowledge?
>>I think the real problem is at the other end. It's not who runs the >>prisons, but why we are filling them so fast.
>In an underfunded system, the management and employees are not motivated >to try to make sure the prisons fill up faster, since they'll continue to >be just as underfunded. In a profit system, the company is motivated to >do anything it can to increase demand for its product.
Your point is not incorrect, but it really isn't relevant. We have gone to privately run prisons because our prisons are over-crowded, the states don't have the money to build new prisons or expand old ones, and don't have the money to expand staffing. The demand doesn't need tweaking.
Prisoners leave prisons primarily because their sentence has been completed or they are paroled. The parole boards are independent of the prisons although a prison representative may sit on the board.
If the corporations in the business of building and managing prisons wanted to do something to continue the demand, they would lobby the states in support of keeping our ridiculous drug laws in force.
I don't see how a prison - state or private - is affected by any motivation to see that the prisons are filled up faster.
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:43:22 -0500, tony cooper wrote: >If the corporations in the business of building and managing prisons >wanted to do something to continue the demand, they would lobby the >states in support of keeping our ridiculous drug laws in force.
<jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Nov 9, 11:34 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:17:22 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
>> <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 9, 12:36 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote: >...
>> >> For some, for-profit prisons where the main criteria are profitability and >> >> efficiency are a form of human trafficking for profit, and morally and >> >> ethically unacceptable. There is no hyperbole involved.
>> >I can't see how for-profit prisons can be compared to human >> >trafficking. The state has taken on the responsibility of keeping the >> >prisoners in prison and taking care of them. It pays a corporation to >> >handle that responsibility. Nobody is paying to own people.
>> >Do you consider it human trafficking for the state to pay families to >> >take care of children who are wards of the state? (This is a normal >> >practice in the United States.)
>> For profit?
>Yes, if their spending on the foster child is less than their >allowance from the state plus the value of any work the child does. >(I know one person who did this when she and her then-husband owned a >ranch. They expected the teenagers they fostered to do ranch work, >which I'm sure they would have expected of their own children if >they'd had any.)
>> With dividends paid to outside shareholders?
>What difference does that make? Is it human trafficking if a >corporation buys a slave but not if a family does?
>> Yes, i would regard that as human trafficking. >...
>It seems backwards to me. In human trafficking, people pay to own >people. In private prison systems, taxpayers pay to have prisoners >taken care of.
Well now, there's a usage question.
I don't think that human trafficking is about "owning" people -- that is chattel slavery. Human trafficking is making money out of controlling people, and buying and selling the right to control them.
>America used to have prisons where the inmates worked for the owner's >profit. That's getting more like human trafficking, but I still don't >think it would be unless the prison owners paid for the prisoners. (I >don't know when that practice ended, maybe around a hundred years >ago.)
We used to have it about 50 years ago.
Prisoners used to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment "with hard labour", and the prisons used to contact that labour out to local farmers. One investigative journalist found out about it and it led to a potato boycott.
>> >> It might be hyperbole to compare for-profit prisons with handing prisoners >> >> over to dementors, but I think that's a moot point too.
>> >Harry Potter?
>> The very same.
>> In the third Harry Potter book the Ministry of Magic contracts out the running >> of prisons to dementors, who look for any excuse to steal the souls of those >> in their "care".
>Got it.
>> Now it might seem like hyperbole to say that a privatised prison in the world >> of Muggledom actually goes so far as to steal anyone's soul, but if you think >> about it a bit, it's not a bad analogy. >...
>Only if government-run prisons are analogous to the Ministry of Magic >hiring dementors as guards.
The point was that the Ministry of Magic had little control over the dementors. They were like the for profit prisons you mentioned, run by a separate organisation.
Steve Hayes wrote: > It might be hyperbole to compare for-profit prisons with handing prisoners > over to dementors, but I think that's a moot point too.
I'm glad you mentioned that. I was watching the film of that book on TV a couple of evenings ago, and I was troubled by what appeared to be a contradiction. The Ministry of Magic was supposed to be among the Good Guys, yet their subordinates seemed to be thoroughly nasty creatures.
Now I see that they were probably subcontractors rather than employees, the clash of values is easier to understand.
-- Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
tony cooper wrote: > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:41:17 -0500, "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> > wrote:
>> In case I didn't make it clear, let me state that I am >> wholeheartedly in the pro--civil-service camp. I were one myself, >> for many years, and my experience at work was that almost everyone >> was competent and dedicated to providing the public with the best >> service possible.
> Civil service in the US is almost completely different from the > civil service in the UK and Canada. Employees of the federal > government may be civil service employees, and employees of the > individual states may be civil service employees, but they are not > in the same civil service. An employee of the State of Florida has > no standing in the US Civil Service or in any other state's civil > service.
> The completely different aspect is that a civil service employee in > a state's system can only progress in that state's hierarchy. That > employee can be hired by a different state, but its different from > working up the ranks. If Florida wants to hire a Secretary of > Correction, they can conduct a search (usually through an agency) or > advertise in other states, but it's not the same as knowing who in > the system is ready to move up. They really only know the > employees in their own system. The movement between states is > pretty much limited to high level jobs.
The systems are the same in that repect. The Feds and Provs are different organisations, and any transfer would be by special agreement or resignation/retirement and rehiring. The unions are different too, e.g. PSAC, PIPSC for the Feds, OPSEU for (e.g. again) Ontario.
> The only time (that I can think of off hand) that I would be in > contact with someone in the federal civil service is when I apply > for a passport, go through customs, deal with Social Security, or > (shudder) have contact with the Internal Revenue Service. Probably > more, but I can't think of more at the moment. I know of others, > but not ones I'm likely to deal with.
> Most civil service employees that I am likely to deal with are in > the Florida civil service system.
Also probably true here, for the country as a whole. My experience is atypical in that I live in Ottawa and was a fed, of sorts.
I've been using "civil servant" because I prefer it, but the official term here is "public servant": in my case, it would actually have made some sense to use it (as I did officially, of course), because my ultimate employer was not the Prime Minister, as for almost all PS, but the Speaker of the House of Commons.
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:35:52 +1100, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.not.china> wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> It might be hyperbole to compare for-profit prisons with handing prisoners >> over to dementors, but I think that's a moot point too.
>I'm glad you mentioned that. I was watching the film of that book on TV >a couple of evenings ago, and I was troubled by what appeared to be a >contradiction. The Ministry of Magic was supposed to be among the Good >Guys, yet their subordinates seemed to be thoroughly nasty creatures.
>Now I see that they were probably subcontractors rather than employees, >the clash of values is easier to understand.
I think Rowling was having a deliberate dig at the post-Thatcher practice of contracting out various responsibilities of the government.
She also has plenty of digs at corruption among government employees as well.
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:42:45 -0800 (PST), John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 8, 7:24 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> >wrote: >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:42:09 -0800 (PST), John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>> >he's a professor ( chairman of dept in North >> >American terms?) at the University of Bristol
>> A UK "professor" is not necessarily equivalent to "chairman of dept" in >> North American terms. There may be more than one professor in a >> department in a UK univ. >> This attempts a summary of the position:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor#Most_other_English-speaking_co...
>I may be a bit more confused than before but thanks.
There are two usages of "chair" involved here: the chair(man/woman/person) of a department and a professorial chair.
These are different items of conceptual furniture.
A professor of Weird Mathematics is said to occupy/hold/someotherverb the Chair of Weird Mathematics.
The concept of a professorial chair comes from the days (ancient Greece?) when the teacher would be seated on a chair and the students would sit on the ground.
OED:
chair, n.1
6. a. The seat from which a professor or other authorized teacher delivers his lectures.
.... b. Hence: The office or position of a professor.
1816 SCOTT Antiq. xxxi, Fighting his way to a chair of rhetoric. 1856 EMERSON Eng. Traits xii. Wks. (Bohn) II. 93 Many chairs and many fellowships are made beds of ease. 1875 M. ARNOLD Ess. Crit. Pref. 10 note, The author had still the Chair of Poetry at Oxford.
Next "department":
Customarily UK universities were structured with major academic groupings called Faculties (Science, Arts, Medicine,...) which were subdivided into Departments.
Some UK universities are still oragnised like that. The one I'm most familiar with is not. It (QUB) went through two major restructurings while I was there. It is now divided into three faculties (Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences; Engineering and Physical Sciences; and Medicine, Health and Life Sciences). The faculties are divided into Schools each of which has several professors, readers, senior lecturers and lecturers. The structures within Schools are pragmatically various.
>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:50:01 -0500, Glenn Knickerbocker >> <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:23:42 -0500, tony cooper wrote: >>>>That same expectation is just as much in force in a system where >>>>there is not enough state funding. Instead of a profit goal, the >>>>goal is to cut programs to meet budgetary requirements.
>>>And you don't see how this is connected to the problem you >>>acknowledge?
>>>>I think the real problem is at the other end. It's not who runs >>>>the prisons, but why we are filling them so fast.
>>>In an underfunded system, the management and employees are not >>>motivated to try to make sure the prisons fill up faster, since >>>they'll continue to be just as underfunded. In a profit system, the >>>company is motivated to do anything it can to increase demand for >>>its product.
>> In a market-driven system like the US I can see the TV adverts: >> "Folks, commit the crime and do the time, and make sure you ask the >> judge to send you to one of EasyTime's prisons. Yes, DUI, rape, >> murder -- you'll be among friends in EasyTime. Don't delay, break >> the law today. Lifers especially welcome."
>The hearings when the contract is next up for renewal would be >especially fun to watch. (And, of course, the legislature would >immediately pass legislation such that any further such advertising >would constitute breach of the terms controlling the contract, if it >couldn't already be construed as reason to pull it.)
I guess my tongue was in my cheek, Evan. I was trying to point out the basic absurdity of the initial premise of this thread but I'm not as blunt as Dr Rey. -- Robin (BrE) Herts, England
On Nov 4, 3:33 am, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> .................t "prisoners may voluntarily perform work > for nonprofit organizations." Does this have a clear meaning in legal > jargon? All the comment I've read implies that it strictly means unpaid > work, but that isn't clear to me from the everyday meaning of the word > "voluntary."............
I think that 'voluntarily' means without being forced to, eg volunteer information (to the police without even being asked). It isn't primarily about being paid money or not. A teenager can voluntarily get a paid part-time job? Dream.... dream...
Any generalised notion and presumption about being unpaid I think is very much secondary and rather unfortunate. It needs more clarification. That's also why 'nonprofit' can be 'not "for" profit (but can have profit and can pay staff)'.
BTW I wouldn't support generalisation/stereotyping about prisoners (or anyone), say, about them needing to be forced to do work. There's goodness in people whatever circumstance they're in.
|
