Talk:Private prison/Archives/2019

For profit prisons

For profit prisons... Who are they good for? They have proven to be dangerous for staff, inmates, and the general population of surrounding areas. The companies that own these prisons are overpaid by the government with loose guidelines and minimal supervision. The contracts made with these companies and the government have rules that are required to followed however they have little to no follow up. The poor follow up leads to overcrowding and staff that is not properly trained which puts everyone in danger. Not only is this dangerous it is a very costly system to keep these for profit prisons going. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:4FC4:8BF8:51C6:D79A:2A9F:5CE4 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Recidivism Rates Within Private Prisons

A point that needs to be added is the recidivism of the inmates. “Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested. Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested. Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.”-According to the National Institute of Justice. These recidivism rates do not vary significantly from the government operated prisons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smylesarebetterthanfrowns2018 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Payment by results UK

I have reverted the passage on payment by results because it is wrong in every respect. The link doesn’t work. The reference is wrong. The UK (which by the way runs three entirely sperate prisons services) does not pay private prisons for reductions in their reoffending rates. No prison in the country in any of the three systems is thus paid. There was a pilot project some years ago in just 2 private prisons which was aborted. Results were mixed, good at one, poor at the other. Moreover as the reconviction rate has declined at all prisons, it is unclear that these results demonstrate the efficacy of payment by results. There are in fact solid grounds for doubting that reductions in reconviction rates are the achievement of correctional services. No prison system in the UK has a prison reconviction rate of 24.8%. The current rate is 47.9% after one year. Finally the subject is not about ‘governance’.Follytobewise (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)follytobewise

Deletion of last sentence under 'UK - evaluation'

I have reverted the last change to the section ‘United Kingdom – evaluation’, which read: “A more recent study [i.e. since 2015] demonstrates that private prisons require more hands-on management by the government, which inevitably increases the government’s long-term transaction costs, and contradicts the cost-saving drive of government policy during austerity.[29]” The article referred to does not do what is claimed. It relies, on this point, exclusively on a 1999 study about America. It therefore includes no data at all relating to the UK, and no data at all for the past 20 years, yet the article relies exclusively on this for a discussion of the impact of austerity in the UK since 2009. The UK and US have completely dissimilar regulatory and management structures: they are not comparable. In fact, past studies of on costs of public and private sector prisons in the UK, quoted in Le Vay 2015, tend to suggest that the on costs are greater for public than for private sector prisons. (Moreover, it is unclear what is meant by ‘contradicts the cost saving drive’, since no one can doubt that spending on prisons fell drastically since 2010). There simply isn’t evidence here to sustain this passage and that is why I have deleted it.Follytobewise (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Follytobewise

Compare cost per inmate.

"To properly compare the benefits of private v.s public prisons, the prisons must share common factors such as similar levels of security, number of staff, and population in the prisons."

This is wrong, both systems have has a different staff, and this is a part of the advantage.

What matters for the taxpayer is the cost per prisoner, considering his risk level.

Milton (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what really is your point, as this statement isn't contradictory with different kind of staff. If they need fewer wardens, then they could afford more staff for other ressources to prevent them becoming criminals again when leaving the jail. Perhaps a link with the advantages you talk about would helps (also, one of the references is a study that doesn’t seems to be publicaly accessible, which would have been valuable for both of us).

Also, I don’t agree that what matter most for the taxpayers is the short-time costs per prisoner. What matter most is rehabilitation and that they don't commit crimes again. Less crimes, fewer jailed peoples, and people not jailed more than needed is what will save most money. In my opinion, those jails don’t have enough incentive to make their inmates better citizens and ready to get back in the society as soon as possible.

And for the required lenght of time in jail before being allowed to ask for parole, and the conditions of it, (because there must also be a dissuasive aspect to a sentence) this really is the job of the Court to decide what is reasonnable, and withing that the jails shuold make the inmate fit for return into the society ASAP, and making him less likely to commit new crimes. This is where the real savings are. But feels free to add independent studies showing the opposite if I am wrong (I suppose some does an excellent job, but what is needed to make them avoid cutting corners and find genuinely innovative solutions to do better).

— 45.45.34.19 (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)