"voluntarily perform work"
Glenn Knickerbocker
allowing the law to provide that "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 don't think anyone would expect voluntary military
service, for instance, to go unpaid.
�R // Failure is not just for failures, it's \\ users.bestweb.net/~notr
for everyone. Failures just have more experience. \ listenerproject.com
Maria Conlon
> New York's Proposition Two asks us to vote on a constitutional
> amendment
> allowing the law to provide that "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 don't think anyone would expect voluntary military
> service, for instance, to go unpaid.
IMO, the use of "volunrary" with "military service" relates to joining
the military rather than being drafted.
When I hear of voluntary/volunteer jobs, the assumption is that there is
no pay, but the workers may be provided with food/accommodations.
Maria Conlon,
Resident of southeast Michigan; native of east Tennessee, "The Volunteer
State." See:
http://www.nypost.com/p/classroom_extra/tennessee_the_volunteer_state_KXObVirLSUFVCbXNc7lxmI
or
http://tinyurl.com/ygezq63
Roland Hutchinson
> New York's Proposition Two asks us to vote on a constitutional amendment
> allowing the law to provide that "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 don't think anyone would expect voluntary military
> service, for instance, to go unpaid.
The volunteer military is so called because its members _enlist_
voluntarily. Of course they are paid for service.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Jerry Friedman
> Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
> > New York's Proposition Two asks us to vote on a constitutional
> > amendment
> > allowing the law to provide that "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 don't think anyone would expect voluntary military
> > service, for instance, to go unpaid.
>
> IMO, the use of "volunrary" with "military service" relates to joining
> the military rather than being drafted.
>
> When I hear of voluntary/volunteer jobs, the assumption is that there is
> no pay, but the workers may be provided with food/accommodations.
I think you've restated Glenn's question, but you and Roland haven't
tried to answer it. I don't know the answer either.
By the way, I can see volunteers being provided with food during their
shifts or with basic accommodations (I once toyed with the idea of
volunteering for a bird survey or census for which I would have lived
in a bunkhouse for some weeks), but if they get room and board, I
think they're being paid.
(Today's weird typo: I typed the "once" above as "was". This gives
more believability to the idea that a British crossword setter could
type "cause" for "course" without any dictation involved.)
--
Jerry Friedman
James Hogg
I don't see that the adverb "voluntarily" implies any reference to
remuneration. As I read it, the sense is the OED's "Performed or done of
one's own free will, impulse, or choice; not constrained, prompted, or
suggested by another." No one can force the prisoners to do this work.
Isn't there a difference between "perform voluntary work" (which
is what people here are discussing) and "voluntarily perform work"
(which is what the proposition says?
--
James
John Dean
> Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>> Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
>>>> New York's Proposition Two asks us to vote on a constitutional
>>>> amendment allowing the law to provide that "prisoners may
>>>> voluntarily perform work for nonprofit organizations."
>
> is what people here are discussing) and "voluntarily perform work"
> (which is what the proposition says?
I'd say that's the heart of it. 'Voluntary work' is what you expect
non-profits to be involved with and it is typically unpaid. The proposition
allows prisoners to work for non-profits if they wish. The idea of
non-payment is implicit, but if it ever became an issue a decent lawyer
could rip it to bits.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Would the lawyer "volunteer", that is, do the work pro bono?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
Nick
It feels like that to me. I could voluntarily perform work at the local
Oxfam shop (they are advertising for a manager) - it would be
voluntarily because no-one would force me. Oxfam is a NPO. But I'd get
paid for it.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
R H Draney
>
>Isn't there a difference between "perform voluntary work" (which
>is what people here are discussing) and "voluntarily perform work"
>(which is what the proposition says?
Here's someone performing a voluntary work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2L0dSEY_Ko
....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Peter Moylan
> New York's Proposition Two asks us to vote on a constitutional amendment
> allowing the law to provide that "prisoners may voluntarily perform work
> for nonprofit organizations." Does this have a clear meaning in legal
> jargon?
The prisoners would probably be interested in knowing the answer. I find
it hard to imagine that prisoners would be given the option of not doing
the work.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Donna Richoux
> New York's Proposition Two asks us to vote on a constitutional amendment
> allowing the law to provide that "prisoners may voluntarily perform work
> for nonprofit organizations." Does this have a clear meaning in legal
> jargon?
There definitions online marked "Law" give both senses of "voluntary"
("voluntarily" is considered a related form) such as
1. Law
a. acting or done without legal obligation, compulsion, or persuasion
b. made without payment or recompense in any form
>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 don't think anyone would expect voluntary military
> service, for instance, to go unpaid.
The discussion at the League of Women Voters pamphlet indicate the point
of this proposal has little to do with being paid or even being freely
chosen. The point is that up to now, any sort of outside work has been
forbidden (perhaps because of a reform movement to stop the exploitation
of chain gangs and cheap labor?), even for a good cause that needs the
help that prisoners could provide.
http://lwvny.org/vote/VG_TextPart2_0909.pdf
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
John Dean
Few lawyers are U2 fans
--
John Dean
Oxford
Arcadian Rises
> Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
> > New York's Proposition Two asks us to vote on a constitutional amendment
> > allowing the law to provide that "prisoners may voluntarily perform work
> > for nonprofit organizations." �Does this have a clear meaning in legal
> > jargon?
>
> The prisoners would probably be interested in knowing the answer. I find
> it hard to imagine that prisoners would be given the option of not doing
> the work.
I thought that "voluntary work" means work without salary, like
slavery. The difference between the volunteers for "Doctors of the
World" and slaves is that the latter are coerced into work while the
former are not.
Like any salaried workers (and unlike the slaves), the volunteers work
because they want. to. One may say that the paid workers are forced
into labor (I meant employment, of course) by economic necessities;
but so are many of the volunteers willing to build up their resumes,
or forced by the boredom they must endure if they don't scheduled
their lives according to the volunteered work.
Glenn Knickerbocker
>1. Law
>a. acting or done without legal obligation, compulsion, or persuasion
>b. made without payment or recompense in any form
OK, that's from Collins. M-W conflates those two senses into a single
definition:
> 7 : acting or done of one's own free will without valuable
> consideration or legal obligation
That's part of why I wondered if that might be an accepted meaning in
legal usage. AH, meanwhile, gives a similarly merged definition--but
also points out a very different legal use:
>6. Law
>a. Without legal obligation or consideration: a voluntary conveyance of
> property.
>b. Done deliberately; intentional: voluntary manslaughter.
Great. Now I have to worry about the possibility of *accidentally*
performing work.
�R http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/cats "Would you like to watch a movie
about George Wendt while eating Chinese food with a cat?" --Andy Simmons
Mark Brader
>>>>> New York's Proposition Two asks us to vote on a constitutional
>>>>> amendment allowing the law to provide that "prisoners may
>>>>> voluntarily perform work for nonprofit organizations."
James Hogg:
>> Isn't there a difference between "perform voluntary work" (which
>> is what people here are discussing) and "voluntarily perform work"
>> (which is what the proposition says?
John Dean:
> I'd say that's the heart of it. 'Voluntary work' is what you expect
> non-profits to be involved with and it is typically unpaid.
For me, the term for what you're talking about is "volunteer work".
And what I associate it with is charities.
"Non-profits" is a broader category -- it includes organizations
that are run like a normal business, with employees paid normally;
they just never distribute profits to shareholders. They exist to
provide a social benefit, not to earn money, but they derive most or
all of their income in the way a normal business would; they may
accept donations, but their primary job isn't to solicit them.
"Voluntary work" or "work performed voluntarily" doesn't suggest
anything specific to me -- it could mean volunteer work, but it could
also refer to a situation where a salaried employee decides to cover
for a co-worker by doing some of the other person's work, or anything
like that.
--
Mark Brader | "One reason that life is complex is that it has
Toronto | a real part and an imaginary part."
m...@vex.net | --Andrew Koenig
My text in this article is in the public domain.
mm
>New York's Proposition Two asks us to vote on a constitutional amendment
>allowing the law to provide that "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 don't think anyone would expect voluntary military
>service, for instance, to go unpaid.
Military service is full time. Not even just 40 hours a week but 24
hours a day, if they want you to do something. In this case, I'd
guess they'd be working a few hours a week and returning to their cell
every night. Maybe if they're doing phone call solicitations, they
won't even leave their prison.
Charitable work is rarely paid for, and when it is the person is not
considered a volunteer. When a charity needs a plumber to unclog the
sink, he might do it for free, which makes him a volunteer, but most
of the time he'll charge them and then he's not a volunteer, even if
he gives them a discount.
Heck, the charities I'm involved in expect me to *contribute* money to
them in order to have the chance to work for them.
--
Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years
mm
<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>(Today's weird typo: I typed the "once" above as "was". This gives
I think I did something like that once. I think once is the past
tense of was.
>more believability to the idea that a British crossword setter could
>type "cause" for "course" without any dictation involved.)
--
mm
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:33:36 -0500, Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
>
>> New York's Proposition Two asks us to vote on a constitutional amendment
>> allowing the law to provide that "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 don't think anyone would expect voluntary military
>> service, for instance, to go unpaid.
>
>The volunteer military is so called because its members _enlist_
>voluntarily. Of course they are paid for service.
And for that matter, the involuntary military, those who for decades
were drafted, were also paid. Because being in the military is a
full-time job.
Doing a few hours work each week for a non-profit is not a full-time
job.
mm
<Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Nov 3, 5:56?pm, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.not.china> wrote:
>> Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
>> > New York's Proposition Two asks us to vote on a constitutional amendment
>> > allowing the law to provide that "prisoners may voluntarily perform work
>> > for nonprofit organizations." ?Does this have a clear meaning in legal
>> > jargon?
>>
>> The prisoners would probably be interested in knowing the answer. I find
>> it hard to imagine that prisoners would be given the option of not doing
>> the work.
>
>I thought that "voluntary work" means work without salary, like
>slavery.
If slavery were voluntary, wouldn't there be a lot less slavery?
>The difference between the volunteers for "Doctors of the
>World" and slaves is that the latter are coerced into work while the
>former are not.
Aha!
>Like any salaried workers (and unlike the slaves), the volunteers work
>because they want. to. One may say that the paid workers are forced
>into labor (I meant employment, of course) by economic necessities;
>but so are many of the volunteers willing to build up their resumes,
>or forced by the boredom they must endure if they don't scheduled
>their lives according to the volunteered work.
--
tony cooper
wrote:
>On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:19:13 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
><my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:33:36 -0500, Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
>>
>>> New York's Proposition Two asks us to vote on a constitutional amendment
>>> allowing the law to provide that "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 don't think anyone would expect voluntary military
>>> service, for instance, to go unpaid.
>>
>>The volunteer military is so called because its members _enlist_
>>voluntarily. Of course they are paid for service.
>
>And for that matter, the involuntary military, those who for decades
>were drafted, were also paid. Because being in the military is a
>full-time job.
>
>Doing a few hours work each week for a non-profit is not a full-time
>job.
The "non-profit" status of an employer has nothing to do with whether
or not the workers are paid. Many hospitals are "non-profit", but
they certainly pay most of the workers. The CEO of a non-profit
hospital can have a seven figure compensation package
It is the function, not the company, that determines the pay. Nurses
are paid. Candy Stripers are not.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
John Kane
It seems likely that it is intended to means that the prisoners may do
the work but cannot be compelled to do it. That is, they can
volenteer but not be conscripted into working for a non-profit.
mm
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:18:05 -0500, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:19:13 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
>><my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:33:36 -0500, Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
>>>
>>>> New York's Proposition Two asks us to vote on a constitutional amendment
>>>> allowing the law to provide that "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 don't think anyone would expect voluntary military
>>>> service, for instance, to go unpaid.
>>>
>>>The volunteer military is so called because its members _enlist_
>>>voluntarily. Of course they are paid for service.
>>
>>And for that matter, the involuntary military, those who for decades
>>were drafted, were also paid. Because being in the military is a
>>full-time job.
>>
>>Doing a few hours work each week for a non-profit is not a full-time
>>job.
>
>The "non-profit" status of an employer has nothing to do with whether
>or not the workers are paid. Many hospitals are "non-profit", but
>they certainly pay most of the workers.
But a) my first paragraph was pointing out that the involuntary
military is paid just like the voluntary military is, and b) wrt my
second paragraph, we were already talking about volunteers. Those at
the non-profit hospitals who get paid are not volunteers, even if they
voluntarily went to the employment office of the hospital and
voluntarily filled out an employment application.
>The CEO of a non-profit
>hospital can have a seven figure compensation package
He's not a volunteer either.
>It is the function, not the company, that determines the pay. Nurses
>are paid. Candy Stripers are not.
The latter are volunteers, the former are not.
When people volunteer at for-profit companies, which act is fairly
rare, they are called interns.
mm
Except of course for the prison itself, which I presume is non-profit.
Roland Hutchinson
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:07:51 -0800 (PST), John Kane <jrkr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 3, 12:33 pm, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>>> New York's Proposition Two asks us to vote on a constitutional
>>> amendment allowing the law to provide that "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 don't think anyone would
>>> expect voluntary military service, for instance, to go unpaid.
>>>
>>> ¬R // Failure is not just for failures, it's \\
>>> users.bestweb.net/~notr for everyone. Failures just have more
>>> experience. \ listenerproject.com
>>
>>It seems likely that it is intended to means that the prisoners may do
>>the work but cannot be compelled to do it. That is, they can volenteer
>>but not be conscripted into working for a non-profit.
>
> Except of course for the prison itself, which I presume is non-profit.
There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
Steve Hayes
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Except of course for the prison itself, which I presume is non-profit.
>
>There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
That is horrible.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
mm
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:13:34 -0500, mm wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:07:51 -0800 (PST), John Kane <jrkr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 3, 12:33嚙緘m, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>>>> New York's Proposition Two asks us to vote on a constitutional
>>>> amendment allowing the law to provide that "prisoners may voluntarily
>>>> perform work for nonprofit organizations." 嚙瘩oes this have a clear
>>>> meaning in legal jargon? 嚙璀ll 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." 嚙瘢 don't think anyone would
>>>> expect voluntary military service, for instance, to go unpaid.
>>>>
>>>> 嚙磋 // Failure is not just for failures, it's \\
>>>> users.bestweb.net/~notr for everyone. Failures just have more
>>>> experience. \ listenerproject.com
>>>
>>>It seems likely that it is intended to means that the prisoners may do
>>>the work but cannot be compelled to do it. That is, they can volenteer
>>>but not be conscripted into working for a non-profit.
>>
>> Except of course for the prison itself, which I presume is non-profit.
>
>There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
You're right. Let me put it another way. Except of course for the
prison when it is one of the non-profits.
It's horrible to have for profit prisons depending on how the prison
actually runs. There are a lot of factors by which one could judge
prisons, and one could compare them with government prisons in the
same state, in other states, in other countries, including South
Africa. I havent' done that, so I can't judge.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 01:51:00 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> Except of course for the prison itself, which I presume is non-profit.
>>
>>There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
>
> That is horrible.
Why? It just means that municipalities have found that it can be
cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the prisons than to do it
themselves. Under the same regulations, of course. Many contract out
things like garbage collection, as well.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Bullwinkle: You sure that's the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | only way?
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Rocky: Well, if you're going to be
| a hero, you've got to do
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | stupid things every once in
(650)857-7572 | a while.
tony cooper
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 01:51:00 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
>> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Except of course for the prison itself, which I presume is non-profit.
>>>
>>>There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
>>
>> That is horrible.
>
>Why? It just means that municipalities have found that it can be
>cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the prisons than to do it
>themselves. Under the same regulations, of course. Many contract out
>things like garbage collection, as well.
To think that it is "horrible" is to think that government employees
are somehow more qualified to run an operation than private enterprise
employees are. We have ample evidence to show that this is not the
case.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 01:51:00 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
>> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Except of course for the prison itself, which I presume is non-profit.
>>>
>>>There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
>>
>> That is horrible.
>
>Why? It just means that municipalities have found that it can be
>cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the prisons than to do it
>themselves. Under the same regulations, of course. Many contract out
>things like garbage collection, as well.
That is equally horrible. Our municipality has done that, and our garbage
wasn't collected for three weeks because they forgot to pay the contractor.
However, that's not really a usage question. I'll blog about it instead.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:37:29 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
Not so.
What is horrible is putting human beings, no matter what they have done, in
the hands of a faceless organisation for whom they are nothing more than a
source of profit, an organisation that is primarily accountable to its
shareholders.
That is unspeakably evil.
Prisons, especially, should be run by public bodies that are accountable to
the electorate.
Roland Hutchinson
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 01:51:00 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> Except of course for the prison itself, which I presume is non-profit.
>>
>>There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
>
> That is horrible.
I didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't.
When you have as large a proportion of your citizens locked up at any
given time as the USA does, horribileness has ceased to be a scarce
resource, regardless of who is running which prisons.
Mark Brader
>>> There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
Steve Hayes:
>> That is horrible.
Evan Kirshenbaum:
> Why? It just means that municipalities have found that it can be
> cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the prisons than to do it
> themselves.
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.
In my opinion.
--
Mark Brader | "Follow my posts and choose the opposite
m...@vex.net | of what I use. That generally works here."
Toronto | --Tony Cooper
Steve Hayes
>Roland Hutchinson:
>>>> There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
>
>Steve Hayes:
>>> That is horrible.
>
>Evan Kirshenbaum:
>> Why? It just means that municipalities have found that it can be
>> cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the prisons than to do it
>> themselves.
>
>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.
>
>In my opinion.
I concur.
In a democratic society the government is accountable to the electorate for
what it does, but a for-profit firm is not accountable in the same way.
Handing prisoners over them is no better than handing them over to prisons run
by unelected dictatorships, Stalin's Gulag, perhaps, or Hitler's "Arbeit macht
frei" holiday camps.
Mark Brader
>>>>> There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
Steve Hayes:
>>>> That is horrible.
Evan Kirshenbaum:
>>> Why? It just means that municipalities have found that it can be
>>> cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the prisons than to do it
>>> themselves.
Mark Brader:
>> 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.
>>
>> In my opinion.
Steve Hayes:
> I concur.
No you don't.
> In a democratic society the government is accountable to the electorate for
> what it does, but a for-profit firm is not accountable in the same way.
That's a *different* objection.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "So *you* say." --Toddy Beamish
m...@vex.net | (H.G. Wells, "The Man Who Could Work Miracles")
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:14:57 -0500, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:37:29 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
>><kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 01:51:00 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
>>>> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Except of course for the prison itself, which I presume is non-profit.
>>>>>
>>>>>There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
>>>>
>>>> That is horrible.
>>>
>>>Why? It just means that municipalities have found that it can be
>>>cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the prisons than to do it
>>>themselves. Under the same regulations, of course. Many contract out
>>>things like garbage collection, as well.
>>
>>To think that it is "horrible" is to think that government employees
>>are somehow more qualified to run an operation than private enterprise
>>employees are. We have ample evidence to show that this is not the
>>case.
>
>Not so.
>
>What is horrible is putting human beings, no matter what they have done, in
>the hands of a faceless organisation for whom they are nothing more than a
>source of profit, an organisation that is primarily accountable to its
>shareholders.
>
Steve, I am uneasy about the principle of private sector prisons.
However, to be fair, the prison earns its money from the public body
that has outsourced imprisonment to it. A prison whether public or
private is still subject to scrutiny and oversight of the way it is run
and the way it treats the prisoners.
Both public and private prisons can do well and do badly.
There is another point to bear in mind. The USA is *different*.
In your country, my country, and many, many, others, prisons are a
national or provicial/state responsibility. South Africa has the
Department of Correctional Services. The UK has three territorial
services at a national level: HM Prison service in England and Wales,
the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the Scottish Prison Service.
By contrast the US has no such national system that holds all prisoners
in the country. See what Evan wrote: "It just means that municipalities
have found that it can be cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the
prisons than to do it themselves". Each municipality operates its own
prison either directly or subcontracted.
With such a fragmented system there is something to be said for
municipalities, each with a need for a single prison, outsourcing
imprisonment to a larger specialist organisation that has experience in
the field of imprisonment and "correction".
>That is unspeakably evil.
>
>Prisons, especially, should be run by public bodies that are accountable to
>the electorate.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
Steve Hayes
>Roland Hutchinson:
>>>>>> There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
>
>Steve Hayes:
>>>>> That is horrible.
>
>Evan Kirshenbaum:
>>>> Why? It just means that municipalities have found that it can be
>>>> cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the prisons than to do it
>>>> themselves.
>
>Mark Brader:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> In my opinion.
>
>Steve Hayes:
>> I concur.
>
>No you don't.
Yes I do.
>> In a democratic society the government is accountable to the electorate for
>> what it does, but a for-profit firm is not accountable in the same way.
>
>That's a *different* objection.
It may be, but it doesn't mean I don't concur with yours.
tony cooper
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I really don't see how employees of a private organization would be
different from government employees. In fact, I think it would be the
same people applying for the job.
>That is unspeakably evil.
>
>Prisons, especially, should be run by public bodies that are accountable to
>the electorate.
Privately run prisons are still responsible to the state boards.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> There is another point to bear in mind. The USA is *different*.
>
> In your country, my country, and many, many, others, prisons are a
> national or provicial/state responsibility. South Africa has the
> Department of Correctional Services. The UK has three territorial
> services at a national level: HM Prison service in England and Wales,
> the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the Scottish Prison Service.
>
> By contrast the US has no such national system that holds all prisoners
> in the country. See what Evan wrote: "It just means that municipalities
> have found that it can be cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the
> prisons than to do it themselves". Each municipality operates its own
> prison either directly or subcontracted.
Actually, what I wrote was misleading. It's states (and the federal
government) that run prisons, and I don't think that any have actually
delegated the responsibility down to municipalities, although jails
(for people awaiting trial) are, I believe, typically a county
responsibility.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The General Theorem of Usenet
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Information: If you really want to
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |know the definitive answer, post
|the wrong information, and wait for
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |someone to come by and explain in
(650)857-7572 |excruciating detail precisely how
|wrong you are.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Eric The Read
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:37:29 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 01:51:00 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
>>> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Except of course for the prison itself, which I presume is
>>>>> non-profit.
>>>>
>>>>There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
>>>
>>> That is horrible.
>>
>>Why? It just means that municipalities have found that it can be
>>cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the prisons than to do it
>>themselves. Under the same regulations, of course. Many contract
>>out things like garbage collection, as well.
>
> That is equally horrible. Our municipality has done that, and our
> garbage wasn't collected for three weeks because they forgot to pay
> the contractor.
Do you thnik things would have been better if the municipality forgot
to pay its own employees? I'd think that if you elect a government
that neglects to pay its bills, you can expect to have problems. In
any case, most of the problems I've heard about in the US with garbage
pickup have come from labor disputes with publicly-employed workers.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Politicians are like compost--they
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |should be turned often or they start
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to smell bad.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:14:57 -0500, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:37:29 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
>><kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 01:51:00 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
>>>> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Except of course for the prison itself, which I presume is non-profit.
>>>>>
>>>>>There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
>>>>
>>>> That is horrible.
>>>
>>>Why? It just means that municipalities have found that it can be
>>>cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the prisons than to do it
>>>themselves. Under the same regulations, of course. Many contract out
>>>things like garbage collection, as well.
>>
>>To think that it is "horrible" is to think that government employees
>>are somehow more qualified to run an operation than private enterprise
>>employees are. We have ample evidence to show that this is not the
>>case.
>
> Not so.
>
> What is horrible is putting human beings, no matter what they have
> done, in the hands of a faceless organisation
Interestingly, around here "faceless" is typically paired with
"government bureaucracy". In any case, how is a public corporation,
with a CEO and everything any more "faceless" than a government
department?
> for whom they are nothing more than a source of profit,
As opposed to?
> an organisation that is primarily accountable to its shareholders.
Laregely for the questions of "What sort of a contract did we get from
the government?" and "How can we keep costs down without doing things
that would put us in danger of losing the contract?"
> That is unspeakably evil.
You might want to get yourself recallibrated. If you get to
"unspeakably evil" that quickly, you're not going to have a whole lot
of range left for really bad things.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |...as a mobile phone is analogous
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to a Q-Tip -- yeah, it's something
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you stick in your ear, but there
|all resemblance ends.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Ross Howard
(650)857-7572
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Roland Hutchinson:
>>>> There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
>
> Steve Hayes:
>>> That is horrible.
>
> Evan Kirshenbaum:
>> Why? It just means that municipalities have found that it can be
>> cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the prisons than to do it
>> themselves.
>
> 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.
Ah. A usage question. Are government contractors less "agents of the
governments" than government employees? I would have thought that
that was precisely what they were.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |People think it must be fun to be a
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |super genius, but they don't
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |realize how hard it is to put up
|with all the idiots in the world.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Calvin
(650)857-7572
Chuck Riggs
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Perhaps you and that mouse in your pocket will be good enough to show
these two groups some of it.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Chuck Riggs
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Government workers are usually lifers who can be held directly
responsible for the actions of the branch employing them. Contractors
hired by them are only as good as the contract under which they are
hired. They come and go like will-o�-the-wisps, sometimes untraceable
and often unaccountable for their actions. They are a dreadful lot,
there only because they give offices more flexibility in their hiring
and spending practices.
Try dealing with a quango or two sometime, Coop, and you may sing a
different tune afterwards.
Chuck Riggs
>Roland Hutchinson:
>>>> There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
>
>Steve Hayes:
>>> That is horrible.
>
>Evan Kirshenbaum:
>> Why? It just means that municipalities have found that it can be
>> cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the prisons than to do it
>> themselves.
>
>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.
>
>In my opinion.
Which I agree with.
What some federal government agencies do, with respect to their
contractors, is not only highly inefficient, it borders on the
illegal, "personal services" contracts being prohibited by law. There
are several essential loopholes in this law, which is why I wrote
"borders on".
Chuck Riggs
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:45:44 -0600, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
>>Roland Hutchinson:
>>>>> There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
>>
>>Steve Hayes:
>>>> That is horrible.
>>
>>Evan Kirshenbaum:
>>> Why? It just means that municipalities have found that it can be
>>> cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the prisons than to do it
>>> themselves.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>In my opinion.
>
>I concur.
>
>In a democratic society the government is accountable to the electorate for
>what it does, but a for-profit firm is not accountable in the same way.
>Handing prisoners over them is no better than handing them over to prisons run
>by unelected dictatorships, Stalin's Gulag, perhaps, or Hitler's "Arbeit macht
>frei" holiday camps.
You exaggerate, Steve, but your point is much the same as mine, a few
posts upthread.
Chuck Riggs
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:08:07 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 01:51:00 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
>> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Except of course for the prison itself, which I presume is non-profit.
>>>
>>>There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
>>
>> That is horrible.
>
>I didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't.
>
>When you have as large a proportion of your citizens locked up at any
>given time as the USA does, horribileness has ceased to be a scarce
>resource, regardless of who is running which prisons.
Should states not ease up on their drug use penalties, drug crimes
being what lead to a high percentage of incarcerations? You can't tell
me that cannabis use, in general, is more dangerous than drinking
alcohol, for example, deserving the stiff penalties sometimes
associated with its use.
tony cooper
wrote:
Read any daily US newspaper. Look for headlines with "DCF" in the
title. (DCF = Department of Children and Families)
tony cooper
wrote:
Because they are part of a chain that leads upwards to a political
office, cover-ups are common. Patronage jobs are protected.
>Contractors
>hired by them are only as good as the contract under which they are
>hired.
The same people apply for jobs as prison guards whether the employer
is the government or a private contractor.
Pat Durkin
news:hj88f59g6aq50nj3l...@4ax.com...
Well, yes, to some extent. Some private "correctional services" firms
build their own prisons for the purpose of operating them for profit.
As with many contracted services, oversight can be far behind current
activities.
Thus, Wisconsin and other states found that inmates in their prisons
were exported to states which had under-used private facilities.
Families and parole boards were not informed of such transfers, and
"donor" states had no authority over those contractual prisons. The
full-faith-and-credit standard was taken for granted, before standards
of penal servitude were examined.
Contracts are frequently issued on the basis of political favors and
unethical, if not corrupt practices. Some transfers were made from
Wisconsin when there were "beds" available.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Or whatever the local equivalent is. In California it's "CPS" for
"Child Protective Services".
But to be fair, I'm not sure that there's evidence that private
organizations do that job any better.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The body was wrapped in duct tape,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weighted down with concrete blocks
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and a telephone cord was tied
|around the neck. Police suspect
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |foul play...
(650)857-7572
Rich Ulrich
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
Here in Pennsylvania, we've had a recent scandal where a
judge was taking payoffs, for years, from a for-profit facility.
In order to fill cells, he would convict and sentence teenagers
with effectively no trial or hearing. IIRC, about 4000 of his
convictions have lately been wiped from the books.
His was an abominable behavior that I have never heard of,
related to government-run prisons.
Prisons might be kind of like health insurance - in private hands,
without strong regulation, the "profit" motivations are apt to
work against policy that is intelligent or fair. Of course, there
are a lot more examples of that for U.S. health insurance.
--
Rich Ulrich
Mark Brader
>> That's a *different* objection.
> It may be, but it doesn't mean I don't concur with yours.
Oh. Then you needed to say "Also", or something. In English usage.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto, m...@vex.net
"Insecurity is the norm. If any ... voting machine, operating system,
[or] database ... is ever built completely vulnerability-free, it'll
be the first time in the history of mankind." --Bruce Schneier
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Here in Pennsylvania, we've had a recent scandal where a judge was
> taking payoffs, for years, from a for-profit facility. In order to
> fill cells, he would convict and sentence teenagers with effectively
> no trial or hearing. IIRC, about 4000 of his convictions have
> lately been wiped from the books.
Okay, I'll admit that that's bad, and probably less likely to happen
with government-run prisons.
> His was an abominable behavior that I have never heard of,
> related to government-run prisons.
Have you heard of it elsewhere with regard to private-run prisons?
Googling this is a bit hard, because "prison" and "kickbacks" usually
go together with respect to people getting sentenced to the former for
the latter, but mostly they seem to relate to the people in charge of
government-run prisons getting kickbacks in exchange for contracts for
things like food service and healthcare provision.
> Prisons might be kind of like health insurance - in private hands,
> without strong regulation, the "profit" motivations are apt to
> work against policy that is intelligent or fair. Of course, there
> are a lot more examples of that for U.S. health insurance.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If a bus station is where a bus
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |stops, and a train station is where
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a train stops, what does that say
|about a workstation?
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Mudge
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 01:51:00 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>
>>> Except of course for the prison itself, which I presume is non-profit.
>>
>> There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
>
> That is horrible.
Only if you're in them !
--
The Canadian Curmudgeon (in Calgary)
Fix the biosphere - eliminate people
Peter Moylan
You can say that because you live in a system where senior public sector
employees are political appointees. It's different where the management
doesn't change each time there's a change in government.
>> Contractors
>> hired by them are only as good as the contract under which they are
>> hired.
>
> The same people apply for jobs as prison guards whether the employer
> is the government or a private contractor.
The guards, yes, but not the management.
There's ongoing controversy in Australia over the prisons used to hold
illegal immigrants and political refugees. (They're not officially
called prisons, but that fools nobody; and the contracted-out ones are
run by a US company that specialises in running prisons.) You can get
away with mistreating criminals, because many people don't care, but
mistreating non-criminals can arouse public anger. Whenever cases of
abuse have surfaced, it always seems that the privately-run institutions
are the big problem.
Why? Because a manager who is required to worry about profitability has
different attitudes from those of a manager whose job is to implement
public policy, and that affects the way the place is run.
By coincidence, I have to sing with my choir tomorrow at a public
protest about the privatisation of a nursing home. (It's a big issue
because the government promised quite clearly that that nursing home
would definitely remain in public hands, and now the government seems to
be saying that a promise made by a politician shouldn't be treated as if
it were a promise made by an honest man.) The reason why people make
such a fuss about such things is that the available figures tell a clear
story: privately run nursing homes have fewer and less qualified nursing
staff than publicly run ones. People fear going into private nursing
homes because of the news that appears every so often of yet another
nursing home where someone has uncovered horror stories about starvation
and neglect.
Theoretically you can have public surveillance of such places, but in
practice the damage is already done by the time an inspection reveals
abuses. And The Force help us if the government ever contracts out the
surveillance function.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Moylan
> Should states not ease up on their drug use penalties, drug crimes
> being what lead to a high percentage of incarcerations? You can't tell
> me that cannabis use, in general, is more dangerous than drinking
> alcohol, for example, deserving the stiff penalties sometimes
> associated with its use.
Careful, Chuck. The UK government has just sacked one of its independent
advisors for saying something like that. He made the mistake of
confusing "independent advice" with "something the people being advised
didn't want to hear".
tony cooper
<pe...@pmoylan.org.not.china> wrote:
>Why? Because a manager who is required to worry about profitability has
>different attitudes from those of a manager whose job is to implement
>public policy, and that affects the way the place is run.
>
Both are in the same spot here. Every state government program is
being slashed back because of declining revenues from taxes. (Florida
has no income tax, and relies heavily on property tax revenue)
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>The same people apply for jobs as prison guards whether the employer
>is the government or a private contractor.
The problem is not the people who are employed as guards and get their wages.
The problem is the people who employ them and why they are doing what they are
doing.
A governmental body in a democracy that runs a prison is accountable to the
electorate, and their object is to protect society from dangerous people, and
possibly resocialise them. There are social values and social objects.
An organisation that does it simply to make money is an entirely different
kettle of fish. It doesn't involve the guards, unless they don't get wages,
but rather a share in the profits.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> That is equally horrible. Our municipality has done that, and our
>> garbage wasn't collected for three weeks because they forgot to pay
>> the contractor.
>
>Do you thnik things would have been better if the municipality forgot
>to pay its own employees? I'd think that if you elect a government
>that neglects to pay its bills, you can expect to have problems. In
>any case, most of the problems I've heard about in the US with garbage
>pickup have come from labor disputes with publicly-employed workers.
This isn't really a matter of English usage -- I've blogged about it at:
http://methodius.blogspot.com/2009/11/anc-thatcherism-pretoria-refuse.html
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
>
>> Roland Hutchinson:
>>>>> There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
>>
>> Steve Hayes:
>>>> That is horrible.
>>
>> Evan Kirshenbaum:
>>> Why? It just means that municipalities have found that it can be
>>> cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the prisons than to do it
>>> themselves.
>>
>> 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.
>
>Ah. A usage question. Are government contractors less "agents of the
>governments" than government employees? I would have thought that
>that was precisely what they were.
In South African law, yes, they are different.
If I employ someone to fell a tree, and it falls on my neighbour's house and
damages it, I am responsible for making good the sdamage and can be sued.
If I get a contractor to do the job, the contractor is responsible, and my
neighbour must sue the contractor, which often proves considerably more
difficult and time consuming.
If someone is mistreated in prison, their family can sue the Minister of
Correctional Services, even if the mistreatment took place under his (/her,
their) predecessor in office. If the prison was run by a contractor, and the
contract wasn't renewed because of abuses that were discovered, there's no
point in suing the new contractor for abuses perpetrated by the previous one,
who can just declare bankruptcy or whatever.
Nick
> tony cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:56:34 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:41:14 -0500, tony cooper
>>> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:34:40 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>>> <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> That is unspeakably evil.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prisons, especially, should be run by public bodies that are accountable to
>>>>> the electorate.
>>>> Privately run prisons are still responsible to the state boards.
>>> Government workers are usually lifers who can be held directly
>>> responsible for the actions of the branch employing them.
>>
>> Because they are part of a chain that leads upwards to a political
>> office, cover-ups are common. Patronage jobs are protected.
>
> You can say that because you live in a system where senior public
> sector employees are political appointees. It's different where the
> management doesn't change each time there's a change in government.
As the UK is for the very short-term future. But the idea of being able
to give all their mates big jobs, and to avoid all those stuffy Civil
Service types reminding them of the law and that they are here to serve
the public etc means that it's looking as though these days are
numbered.
Yes, I do find it apalling.
[good stuff snipped]
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Nick
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>
>> Should states not ease up on their drug use penalties, drug crimes
>> being what lead to a high percentage of incarcerations? You can't tell
>> me that cannabis use, in general, is more dangerous than drinking
>> alcohol, for example, deserving the stiff penalties sometimes
>> associated with its use.
>
> Careful, Chuck. The UK government has just sacked one of its
> independent advisors for saying something like that. He made the
> mistake of confusing "independent advice" with "something the people
> being advised didn't want to hear".
I have to say that I see blame on both sides here. He didn't just give
the Government unpalatable advice (as was his job) but when they acted
against it (which they are capable of doing - they've got things outside
the scientific evidence to add to the calculations) he went around
actively briefing against them, in a political rather than scientific
way.
For example, comparing the risks of the use of an illegal drug with that
of a legal activity is hardly scientific just on "how many people die a
year" - without taking into account the numbers participating, how often
they do it etc.
Peter Moylan
Funding cuts because of a state government decision would have the same
effect, I imagine, whether an institution was directly run within the
public sector or contracted out. Whether or not one approves of such
cuts, at least they're out in the open, and the government has to put up
a good case to the voters, or risk being thrown out of office.
Economy measures put in place to increase shareholders' dividends are
less open, less likely to create pressure to sack the management, and
much less directly under voter control.
John Holmes
>
> Great. Now I have to worry about the possibility of *accidentally*
> performing work.
You are accidentally performing work if you walk up the stairs, thereby
increasing your potential energy. I know I always seem to have more
energy after a good night's sleep.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Chuck Riggs
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
To avoid confusion, let me make it clear that I've be writing about
government employees and government contractors in general and not
people who work for the prison system, a subcategory of workers I know
little about.
>>Contractors
>>hired by them are only as good as the contract under which they are
>>hired.
>
>The same people apply for jobs as prison guards whether the employer
>is the government or a private contractor.
Of course, but the chain of command differs. With a government worker,
his exposure is greater. You can look him up in a directory, by name,
title and function. Nearly always, it is relatively easy to find his
office location and his phone number. Contractors in the quangoes they
work for, on the other hand, are often nameless people who come and
go, as I said yesterday in more poetic terms. They soak up a
disproportionately high amount of the taxpayer's money in salaries,
for what they do, when compared to government employees.
The Irish taoiseach, in trying to shrink the size and cost of
government, is having trouble getting rid of them, there are so
embedded by function.
The US Navy was not that different when I worked for it. Since a
particular government office is constrained by Congress to how many
people it can hire, they often contract work out, knowing this is,
generally, the less efficient way of doing business.
Chuck Riggs
<pe...@pmoylan.org.not.china> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:20:56 +1100, Peter Moylan
>> <pe...@pmoylan.org.not.china> wrote:
>>
>>> Why? Because a manager who is required to worry about profitability has
>>> different attitudes from those of a manager whose job is to implement
>>> public policy, and that affects the way the place is run.
>>>
>> Both are in the same spot here. Every state government program is
>> being slashed back because of declining revenues from taxes. (Florida
>> has no income tax, and relies heavily on property tax revenue)
>
>Funding cuts because of a state government decision would have the same
>effect, I imagine, whether an institution was directly run within the
>public sector or contracted out. Whether or not one approves of such
>cuts, at least they're out in the open, and the government has to put up
>a good case to the voters, or risk being thrown out of office.
>
>Economy measures put in place to increase shareholders' dividends are
>less open, less likely to create pressure to sack the management, and
>much less directly under voter control.
Contracting out is less efficient, and thus more costly to the
taxpayer, for at least three reasons. The contractor, no matter how
the contract is written, receives his work from a government worker.
Eliminate him and save that step. He is generally not in the same
office with the government workers, so his information sources are
seldom as good. His cost to the taxpayer is generally greater, when
you consider his salary and the administrative costs, than the
government worker he is reporting to.
They are not, by any measure, a good deal. I've worked both sides of
the fence, so I know of what I speak.
Chuck Riggs
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:14:57 -0500, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:37:29 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
>>><kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 01:51:00 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
>>>>> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except of course for the prison itself, which I presume is non-profit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is horrible.
>>>>
>>>>Why? It just means that municipalities have found that it can be
>>>>cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the prisons than to do it
>>>>themselves. Under the same regulations, of course. Many contract out
>>>>things like garbage collection, as well.
>>>
>>>To think that it is "horrible" is to think that government employees
>>>are somehow more qualified to run an operation than private enterprise
>>>employees are. We have ample evidence to show that this is not the
>>>case.
>>
>> Not so.
>>
>> What is horrible is putting human beings, no matter what they have
>> done, in the hands of a faceless organisation
>
>Interestingly, around here "faceless" is typically paired with
>"government bureaucracy". In any case, how is a public corporation,
>with a CEO and everything any more "faceless" than a government
>department?
>
>> for whom they are nothing more than a source of profit,
>
>As opposed to?
>
>> an organisation that is primarily accountable to its shareholders.
>
>Laregely for the questions of "What sort of a contract did we get from
>the government?" and "How can we keep costs down without doing things
>that would put us in danger of losing the contract?"
>
>> That is unspeakably evil.
>
>You might want to get yourself recallibrated. If you get to
>"unspeakably evil" that quickly, you're not going to have a whole lot
>of range left for really bad things.
Veering from the subject slightly, where I initially attended college,
the campus was patrolled by two sorts of cops, the local, county ones
and by rent-a-cops. I don't think I have to tell anyone which group
was respected and which one was the laughing stock.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Other than possibly looking only at "die due to violence involved with
obtaining the drug (due to its illegality)" is there *any* way to skew
the numbers such that drinking alcohol comes out as a safer activity
than smoking cannabis? Anywhere?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If you think health care is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |expensive now, wait until you see
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |what it costs when it's free.
| P.J. O'Rourke
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Nick
None that I can think of. The example I was thinking of was comparing
taking Ecstasy with horse riding.
Chuck Riggs
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:42:11 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:14:57 -0500, tony cooper
>>><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>To think that it is "horrible" is to think that government
>>>>employees are somehow more qualified to run an operation than
>>>>private enterprise employees are. We have ample evidence to show
>>>>that this is not the case.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you and that mouse in your pocket will be good enough to show
>>>these two groups some of it.
>>
>> Read any daily US newspaper. Look for headlines with "DCF" in the
>> title. (DCF = Department of Children and Families)
>
>Or whatever the local equivalent is. In California it's "CPS" for
>"Child Protective Services".
>
>But to be fair, I'm not sure that there's evidence that private
>organizations do that job any better.
Of course they do, at least from my experience in working for the U.S.
government and for private enterprise involved in government work.
Much later, I've had some dealings with the Irish government. These
were generally negative when I was forced to find the correct quango
that dealt with my question, especially since I am a relative newcomer
and the Irish government is a behemoth.
The consensus in Ireland is pretty clearly that people would rather
talk to someone in government than to someone in a quango, whose
employees seldom know, in my experience, which office is the best one
to talk to. Unlike the US federal government, it is not an efficient
system.
If you need convincing that the U.S. government is efficient, take a
look at www.usa.gov. Now look at a more typical layout at
http://www.gov.ie/en/
tony cooper
wrote:
>
>Veering from the subject slightly, where I initially attended college,
>the campus was patrolled by two sorts of cops, the local, county ones
>and by rent-a-cops. I don't think I have to tell anyone which group
>was respected and which one was the laughing stock.
I've seen the same thing, but the disrespect is not because the
rent-a-cops are employed by a contractor, but because they have less
authority of a police nature. If the police department would hire a
tier of employees to direct traffic and write parking tickets, but not
authorize them with the power of arrest, they would not be as
respected as a regular police officer even though their paycheck comes
from the police department.
Chuck Riggs
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
>
>> Roland Hutchinson:
>>>>> There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
>>
>> Steve Hayes:
>>>> That is horrible.
>>
>> Evan Kirshenbaum:
>>> Why? It just means that municipalities have found that it can be
>>> cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the prisons than to do it
>>> themselves.
>>
>> 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.
>
>Ah. A usage question. Are government contractors less "agents of the
>governments" than government employees?
Most certainly.
>I would have thought that
>that was precisely what they were.
Like most agents, Agent 99 worked directly for the government.
Contractors work under contract and not directly for the government.
They are not in the chain of command than runs from the president on
down. All government workers, the newest GS-4 clerk included, are.
Chuck Riggs
Never go around your boss when an issue is hot, is something I learned
early on while working for the government. Instead, wait for an
appropriate time to make your move.
Jerry Friedman
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:54:37 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chri...@eircom.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Veering from the subject slightly, where I initially attended college,
> >the campus was patrolled by two sorts of cops, the local, county ones
> >and by rent-a-cops. I don't think I have to tell anyone which group
> >was respected and which one was the laughing stock.
>
> I've seen the same thing, but the disrespect is not because the
> rent-a-cops are employed by a contractor, but because they have less
> authority of a police nature. If the police department would hire a
> tier of employees to direct traffic and write parking tickets, but not
> authorize them with the power of arrest, they would not be as
> respected as a regular police officer even though their paycheck comes
> from the police department.
Santa Fe has done that. I think they're called public safety aides.
I'm not exactly sure of their powers or who pays them. I also have no
knowledge of people's attitude toward them, but I imagine it's as you
say.
I feel sure Santa Fe wasn't the first.
--
Jerry Friedman
CDB
> Mark Brader:
>>> That's a *different* objection.
>
> Steve Hayes:
>> It may be, but it doesn't mean I don't concur with yours.
>
> Oh. Then you needed to say "Also", or something. In English usage.
>
agreement in one paragraph and his (allegedly) different point in a
new one.
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," 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.
tony cooper
Come to think of it, so has Orlando. If you call in to report a
traffic accident without injury, a Community Service officer may be
deployed (Ha!). He or she will write a report and give copies to
those involved, but cannot issue a ticket. I believe you can request
a "real" policeman, but the wait may be an hour or more. Since this
is a "no fault" state, there's less need to have one of the parties
ticketed for insurance purposes.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Ah. I assumed that your "something like that" was closer to Chuck's
original example.
I'm not sure that "how often they do it", is really a relevant
consideration, though. If something has half the risk when it's done,
but tends to be done a hundred times more often by those who do it, it
really is more dangerous, in the sense that the average person
participating is much more likely to be harmed in any given time
period. Of course, when arguing legalization, you have to adjust for
an expected change in rate due to removing the illegality and,
probably, dropping the price, but I doubt, for example, that anything
you can do would make marijuana users smoke the same number of
cigarettes as tobacco users (a bogus normalization I've seen several
times).
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Those who would give up essential
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Liberty, to purchase a little
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |temporary Safety, deserve neither
|Liberty nor Safety.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Benjamin Franklin
(650)857-7572
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:23:46 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:42:11 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:14:57 -0500, tony cooper
>>>><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>To think that it is "horrible" is to think that government
>>>>>employees are somehow more qualified to run an operation than
>>>>>private enterprise employees are. We have ample evidence to show
>>>>>that this is not the case.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps you and that mouse in your pocket will be good enough to show
>>>>these two groups some of it.
>>>
>>> Read any daily US newspaper. Look for headlines with "DCF" in the
>>> title. (DCF = Department of Children and Families)
>>
>>Or whatever the local equivalent is. In California it's "CPS" for
>>"Child Protective Services".
>>
>>But to be fair, I'm not sure that there's evidence that private
>>organizations do that job any better.
>
> Of course they do, at least from my experience in working for the U.S.
> government and for private enterprise involved in government work.
Specifically for the job of dealing with children in bad home
situations?
> Much later, I've had some dealings with the Irish government. These
> were generally negative when I was forced to find the correct quango
> that dealt with my question, especially since I am a relative
> newcomer and the Irish government is a behemoth. The consensus in
> Ireland is pretty clearly that people would rather talk to someone
> in government than to someone in a quango, whose employees seldom
> know, in my experience, which office is the best one to talk
> to. Unlike the US federal government, it is not an efficient system.
> If you need convincing that the U.S. government is efficient, take a
> look at www.usa.gov. Now look at a more typical layout at
> http://www.gov.ie/en/ --
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Yesterday I washed a single sock.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |When I opened the door, the machine
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |was empty.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Nick
> Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> writes:
>
>> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> writes:
>>
>>
>> None that I can think of. The example I was thinking of was
>> comparing taking Ecstasy with horse riding.
>
> Ah. I assumed that your "something like that" was closer to Chuck's
> original example.
>
> I'm not sure that "how often they do it", is really a relevant
> consideration, though. If something has half the risk when it's done,
> but tends to be done a hundred times more often by those who do it, it
> really is more dangerous, in the sense that the average person
> participating is much more likely to be harmed in any given time
> period. Of course, when arguing legalization, you have to adjust for
> an expected change in rate due to removing the illegality and,
> probably, dropping the price, but I doubt, for example, that anything
> you can do would make marijuana users smoke the same number of
> cigarettes as tobacco users (a bogus normalization I've seen several
> times).
In this case, he is reported as follows
(http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Ecstasy-No-Worse-Than-Horse-Riding-Says-Drug-Adviser-Professor-David-Nutt-Pens-Journal-Article/Article/200902115218451?f=rss):
The professor writes that equasy - short for equine addiction syndrome -
causes more than 100 deaths a year.
Ecstasy use is linked to some 30 deaths a year - up from 10 a year in
the early 1990s.
He adds: "This attitude raises the critical question of why society
tolerates - indeed encourages - certain forms of potentially harmful
behaviour but not others such as drug use."
Don't see anything about the risk there, just the absolute death rate.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> The professor writes that equasy - short for equine addiction
> syndrome - causes more than 100 deaths a year.
>
> Ecstasy use is linked to some 30 deaths a year - up from 10 a year in
> the early 1990s.
>
> He adds: "This attitude raises the critical question of why society
> tolerates - indeed encourages - certain forms of potentially harmful
> behaviour but not others such as drug use."
>
> Don't see anything about the risk there, just the absolute death
> rate.
None there, but how about in the actual paper that's reported? I'm
not sure which issue of the _Journal of Psychopharmacology_ they're
talking about, and you need to subscribe to read it, but finding the
article is complicated by the fact that he appears to be a regular
contributor, so I would presume that he knows something about writing
decent medical papers.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The mystery of government is not how
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Washington works, but how to make it
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stop.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> writes:
>
>> The professor writes that equasy - short for equine addiction
>> syndrome - causes more than 100 deaths a year.
>>
>> Ecstasy use is linked to some 30 deaths a year - up from 10 a year in
>> the early 1990s.
>>
>> He adds: "This attitude raises the critical question of why society
>> tolerates - indeed encourages - certain forms of potentially harmful
>> behaviour but not others such as drug use."
>>
>> Don't see anything about the risk there, just the absolute death
>> rate.
>
> None there, but how about in the actual paper that's reported? I'm
> not sure which issue of the _Journal of Psychopharmacology_ they're
> talking about, and you need to subscribe to read it, but finding the
> article is complicated by the fact that he appears to be a regular
> contributor, so I would presume that he knows something about writing
> decent medical papers.
And the way the Wikipedia article describes it, he *was* talking about
relevant rates:
In January 2009 he published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology a
paper ('Equasy - An overlooked addiction with implications for the
current debate on drug harms') in which the risks associated with
horse riding (1 serious adverse event every ~350 exposures) were
compared to those of taking ecstasy (1 serious adverse event every
~10,000 exposures).
So unless people who take ecstasy do so on average about 30 times as
often as people who ride horses ride horses, it would seem that you
would be safer deciding to get into doing the former regularly than
the latter.
Ah, they link to the article
http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/23/1/3
So not a study and somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the point appears to
be that if the government were presented with horseback riding as
something they were considering regulating, if the concern was just
based on the danger, they would pretty much have to decide regulate it
more severely than many drugs. And, conversely, if we're willing to
tolerate the risks for such activities, there's no point in not
similarly tolerating the much lower risks of others. He ends by
calling for "the use of rational aevidence for the assessment of the
harms of drugs", which seems perfectly reasonable. The problem is
precisely that doing so may lead one to come to "politically
incorrect" (in an old sense) conclusions.
One interesting point he makes is
During this decade, the likelihood of a newspaper reporting a
death from paracetamol was in [sic] per 250 deaths, for diazepam
it was 1 in 50, whereas for amphetamine it was 1 in 3 and for
ecstasy *every* associated death was reported. [emphasis his]
The skew in reporting can make it hard to rationally assess relative
risks.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |This case--and I must be careful
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |not to fall into Spooner's trap
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |here--concerns a group of warring
|bankers.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
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.
--
Mark Brader "Well, it's not in MY interest -- and I represent
Toronto the public, so it's not in the public interest!"
m...@vex.net -- Jim Hacker, "Yes, Minister" (Lynn & Jay)
My text in this article is in the public domain.
tony cooper
>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.
Who is the "additional class" of people?
Mark Brader
>> *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.
Tony Cooper:
> Who is the "additional class" of people?
Employees of prison companies.
--
Mark Brader | It's practically impossible to keep two separate databases
Toronto | in step for any length of time. That's true even when one
m...@vex.net | of the "databases" is reality itself. -- Andrew Koenig
Glenn Knickerbocker
>You are accidentally performing work if you walk up the stairs,
"TALK NORMAL," said Laurie Anderson uprightly.
tony cooper
>Mark Brader:
>>> *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.
>
>Tony Cooper:
>> Who is the "additional class" of people?
>
>Employees of prison companies.
I don't understand why you would consider them an additional class.
Most of them are people who would be doing the same thing in the same
place, but receiving paychecks from a different organization.
If a prison changes from being state-run to being run by a private
corporation, I would imagine that a large percentage of the employees
would continue to work at the same place. Some might apply at other
state facilities for reasons based on their retirement plan, most
would stay on. In these times, when unemployment is up and home
prices are down, there's not going to be a lot of movement to other
areas.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:12:53 -0600, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
As I have pointed out elsethread, the problem is not so much the employees of
prison companies, but the *owners* and managers of prison companies.
If it is a public company, it is the shareholders of the company, and why
should they have that right?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Mark Brader
>>>> *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.
Tony Cooper:
>>> Who is the "additional class" of people?
Mark Brader:
>> Employees of prison companies.
Tony Cooper:
> I don't understand why you would consider them an additional class.
I have already answered that question, and will say no more on the
subject.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Don't get clever at 5PM Friday."
m...@vex.net -- Tom Van Vleck
CDB
> 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.
>
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.
>
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. 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?
Chuck Riggs
Delivering the post is one thing, but would anyone want powers of
arrest, along with all the other powers we grant our police, to be in
private hands? Since, for one thing, it is easier to corrupt a number
of small collections of individuals than one large one, I know I
wouldn't.
tony cooper
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:17:10 -0500, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:12:53 -0600, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Brader:
>>>>> *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.
>>>
>>>Tony Cooper:
>>>> Who is the "additional class" of people?
>>>
>>>Employees of prison companies.
>>
>>I don't understand why you would consider them an additional class.
>>Most of them are people who would be doing the same thing in the same
>>place, but receiving paychecks from a different organization.
>>
>>If a prison changes from being state-run to being run by a private
>>corporation, I would imagine that a large percentage of the employees
>>would continue to work at the same place. Some might apply at other
>>state facilities for reasons based on their retirement plan, most
>>would stay on. In these times, when unemployment is up and home
>>prices are down, there's not going to be a lot of movement to other
>>areas.
>
>As I have pointed out elsethread, the problem is not so much the employees of
>prison companies, but the *owners* and managers of prison companies.
You say "the problem is". What indication do you have that there *is*
a problem?
The "owners" of the companies that manage prison are stockholders.
Prisons are not being operated like Mom and Pop roadside stands.
Corrections Corp of America manages about 60 prisons. CCA, and others
in this business, are large organizations listed on the New York stock
exchange.
Stockholders are detached owners without much say in the day-to-day
running of an organization. They are interested in profitability
because that affects the stock's price and dividends, but they are
also put off by any scandal.
I don't see much difference between state-appointed managers and
corporation-appointed managers. State-appointed managers have the
same goals as corporation-appointed managers. Both are charged with
operating the organization within a budget.
The fact that a prison can make a profit doesn't necessarily taint the
concept. The state allocates a certain amount of money to run the
prison. If a private group can take that same amount of money and -
by being more efficient than the state - make a profit, then I don't
see a problem.
For you to say "the problem is", you really need something substantial
in your argument to back it up.
>
>If it is a public company, it is the shareholders of the company, and why
>should they have that right?
--
tony cooper
>Mark Brader:
>>>>> *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.
>
>Tony Cooper:
>>>> Who is the "additional class" of people?
>
>Mark Brader:
>>> Employees of prison companies.
>
>Tony Cooper:
>> I don't understand why you would consider them an additional class.
>
>I have already answered that question, and will say no more on the
>subject.
That's up to you, Mark, but I don't see where you've answered the
question. I can see where employees of a private system are in a
different classification from employees of a public system, but I
don't see how "class" fits in any way, shape, or form.
"Class", even in the US, connotes some kind of right, privilege,
status, or position that is not accorded to some other group. I don't
see how that word applies to a prison guard based only on who he/she
is employed by. Your usage is further complicated by the word
"additional".
Chuck Riggs
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
You're still not seeing a fundamental problem with replacing people
directly responsible to the voter, admittedly through a chain of
command, with people whose responsibility to them is defined in a set
of contracts, at best, or, at worst, what amount to little more than
agreements.
Any citizen can readily view the set of county, state or federal laws
that apply to his police coverage and to the law in question, but what
about the contracts, with their amendments, applying to rent-a-cops in
their area? Forget about it.
tony cooper
wrote:
I have an understanding of who is directly responsible to the voters:
elected officials. Elected officials serve for a stated term in
office. Contracts are also for a stated term. If the elected
official does not perform his obligations to the satisfaction of the
voters, they are not returned to office. If contractors do not
perform their obligation to the satisfaction of the voters, that is a
reflection on the elected officials who will not renew the contracts.
It's not quite that simple, but checks and balances are present.
Evan Kirshenbaum
I don't know if he isn't, but I certainly am not.
> Any citizen can readily view the set of county, state or federal
> laws that apply to his police coverage and to the law in question,
> but what about the contracts, with their amendments, applying to
> rent-a-cops in their area? Forget about it.
I'd be floored if such things weren't matters of public record. I'd
be equally floored if they didn't contain a requirement to follow all
of the county, state or federal laws that would apply if the prison
were run by the state.
So far, as far as I've seen, the only example of an actual problem
anybody's brought up here is one prison managing to successfully bribe
a bribable judge (a government employee) into breaking the law. An
act which I'm fairly certain wasn't allowed in their contract.
--
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.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>The fact that a prison can make a profit doesn't necessarily taint the
>concept. The state allocates a certain amount of money to run the
>prison. If a private group can take that same amount of money and -
>by being more efficient than the state - make a profit, then I don't
>see a problem.
>
>For you to say "the problem is", you really need something substantial
>in your argument to back it up.
Well, if you see efficency and profitability as the main or only criteria,
then we inhabit entirely different moral universies.
But since this forum is for discussing English usage and not the ethics of
human trafficking, it doesn't really matter, does it?
tony cooper
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:45:18 -0500, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>>The fact that a prison can make a profit doesn't necessarily taint the
>>concept. The state allocates a certain amount of money to run the
>>prison. If a private group can take that same amount of money and -
>>by being more efficient than the state - make a profit, then I don't
>>see a problem.
>>
>>For you to say "the problem is", you really need something substantial
>>in your argument to back it up.
>
>Well, if you see efficency and profitability as the main or only criteria,
>then we inhabit entirely different moral universies.
The concept of a privately run prison system that is efficient and
profitable, compared to a government run program, does not conflict
with moral aspects. What you are alluding to is how prisoners are
treated. That is not dependant, and may not even be affected by, the
financial structure of the system.
If there are adequate funds to provide for the prisoner's care and
feeding, and those funds are efficiently spent, the system works. If
the funds are not available, or not spent wisely, the system doesn't
work and the prisoners suffer. The first part - funding the program -
is done in the US by legislation and allocation of the state's budget.
There may be an advantage, here, in the private over the public
system. A private organization can decline to accept the contract if
they don't feel the allocated funds are sufficient. In a
government-run system, they have to make-do with what is allocated.
Any continuing problem concerning the physical and mental treatment of
prisoners is an issue relating to oversight. Oversight is not lost
because the organization is run privately.
>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.
John Kane
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:37:29 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
>
>
>
> <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> >Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 01:51:00 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
> >> <my.spamt...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Except of course for the prison itself, which I presume is non-profit.
>
> >>>There are numerous for-profit prisons in these United States.
>
> >> That is horrible.
>
> >Why? It just means that municipalities have found that it can be
> >cheaper to pay an outside firm to run the prisons than to do it
> >themselves. Under the same regulations, of course. Many contract out
> >things like garbage collection, as well.
>
> To think that it is "horrible" is to think that government employees
> are somehow more qualified to run an operation than private enterprise
> employees are. We have ample evidence to show that this is not the
> case.
>
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Try googling Wackenhut and prisons. They at least have a very poor
record.
http://www.serendipity.li/more/palast01.htm
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada