isadore;1193008 wrote:no recidivism among the recipients.

Kill everyone you arrest then. No recidivism.

queencitybuckeye;1193029 wrote:Such a small amount among those with a "true" life sentence as to be statistically zero, at a far lower cost to the taxpayer, although I know you're unconcerned about that part.

do you have a link for that claim. Because we have cases like this
[h=1]Female Ark. prison guard killed checking on inmate[/h]By JILL BLEED, Associated Press
January 21, 2012



LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A convicted murderer stabbed a female guard to death at an east Arkansas prison Friday while she was investigating whether he had an unauthorized pair of shoes, a prison spokeswoman said.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/female-ark-prison-guard-killed-checking-inmate

It's about punishment as opposed to acting as a deterrent, saving money, rehabilitating or minimizing recidivism.

I Wear Pants;1192847 wrote:So are you cool with privately operated prisons and such, especially when they're publicly traded companies knowing full well that the only thing they are designed for is shareholder return? There are some things that simply aren't suited to be turned into a battleground for money (not that this battle is always a negative thing because for most applications it results in wonderful benefits) one of which I firmly believe to be the prison system.

Privately owned prisons and the companies that own them have a vested interest in increasing their profit through either increasing the price of their product (bad for us) or by increasing the use of their service (bad for us as well) and because of our current governmental set up they can essentially bribe the people in power to make policies that assist their goals.

I would be fine with private prisons only if we had private law and law enforcement as well, but that is way too complicated a topic to get involved with in this thread. Otherwise you are right that the private prisons that were in favor with the government would get special treatment, and pretty much run like the prisons we have now anyway.

I Wear Pants;1192847 wrote: Why is it that lobbying of the current nature (bribery) is seemingly loved by people like you and isadore? It makes everything worse for most people.

We have a right to redress grievance and petition the government but I see no reason why needs to mean the current definition of "petition the government" which means "give money to politicians". Nor do I see why Citizens United was a good idea at all. That needs to be undone.

I don't love corporations lobbying for regulations or subsidies or welfare. I despise it. I want to stop it, not just pay lip service to the problem.

You can make anything you want illegal. It isn't going to stop it. Do drug laws stop drug use? Did alcohol prohibition stop drinking? If you make lobbying illegal, nothing will change. They will just go behind closed doors to buy their politicians. They only way to stop lobbying is to remove the ability of the government to grant those favors.

Cleveland Buck;1193148 wrote:I would be fine with private prisons only if we had private law and law enforcement as well, but that is way too complicated a topic to get involved with in this thread. Otherwise you are right that the private prisons that were in favor with the government would get special treatment, and pretty much run like the prisons we have now anyway.



I don't love corporations lobbying for regulations or subsidies or welfare. I despise it. I want to stop it, not just pay lip service to the problem.

You can make anything you want illegal. It isn't going to stop it. Do drug laws stop drug use? Did alcohol prohibition stop drinking? If you make lobbying illegal, nothing will change. They will just go behind closed doors to buy their politicians. They only way to stop lobbying is to remove the ability of the government to grant those favors.

True, but lets do it on both ends. Get rid of the ability to lobby in the current manor as well as the ability of politicians/the government to grant those favors.

I don't know if I'm okay with private law enforcement. I'm not really cool with employees of certain corporations being given special rights over me everywhere they go. To be clear I'm not fully okay with it just because it's the government either but I don't see the benefits of going private in law enforcement or corrections outweighing the downsides.

And we're already seeing that privately owned prisons don't actually save states any money and there's been a few scandals recently regarding conditions and treatment as well.

Con_Alma;1193141 wrote:It's about punishment as opposed to acting as a deterrent, saving money, rehabilitating or minimizing recidivism.

It should be about the benefit to society. The idea behind things being illegal is that they harm individuals or society collectively.

I Wear Pants;1193156 wrote:It should be about the benefit to society. The idea behind things being illegal is that they harm individuals or society collectively.

Law is about more than benefiting society. It's also about the desire that's not yet reached...and sometimes never will be or can't be. We make things illegal to represent the type of culture and society we would like to be...whether we get there or not isn't always certain.

Having such laws are useless without enforcement and a penalty for breaking them.

Con_Alma;1193162 wrote:Law is about more than benefiting society. It's also about the desire that's not reach reached...and sometimes never will be or can't be. We make things illegal to represent the type of culure and society we would like to be...whether we get there or not isn't always certain.

Having such laws are useless without enforcement and a penalty for breaking them.

I wasn't saying we shouldn't enforce or have penalties for breaking laws.

All I'm saying is we shouldn't kill people.

I Wear Pants;1193154 wrote:...
And we're already seeing that privately owned prisons don't actually save states any money and there's been a few scandals recently regarding conditions and treatment as well.

It's not about saving money but that should be a goal and constantly worked towards. It's about those who function in that discipline carrying out that service for the people. The respective government need only facilitate the means to carry out the service the people need. It doesn't have to be performed by the government directly.

I Wear Pants;1193164 wrote:I wasn't saying we shouldn't enforce or have penalties for breaking laws.

All I'm saying is we shouldn't kill people.

I understand.

I disagree. The penalty appropriate for many acts should be death in my opinion.

Con_Alma;1193166 wrote:It's not about saving money but that should be a goal and constantly worked towards. It's about those who function in that discipline carrying out that service for the people. The respective government need only facilitate the means to carry out the service the people need. It doesn't have to be performed by the government directly.

What is the benefit of having private prisons?

Con_Alma;1193168 wrote:I understand.

I disagree. The penalty appropriate for many acts should be death in my opinion.

And how do you reconcile the fact that sometimes people get incorrectly convicted and have likely been executed unjustly. I believe you are a Christian so I'm curious how this works out with your idea of the afterlife. Assuming you're right about that what do you say when god asks why you were supportive of killing people who could possibly have been innocent?

Not trying to pry at your religious beliefs or you in particular but I'm always confused when Christians support the death penalty.

I Wear Pants;1193176 wrote:What is the benefit of having private prisons?

...less day to day management by government... more day to day management by private sector.

Government decisions and actions are not always based on benefit but rather are also based on necessity. The governments responsibility isn't necessarily to provide service but it is to make required services available.

I Wear Pants;1193183 wrote:And how do you reconcile the fact that sometimes people get incorrectly convicted and have likely been executed unjustly. I believe you are a Christian so I'm curious how this works out with your idea of the afterlife. Assuming you're right about that what do you say when god asks why you were supportive of killing people who could possibly have been innocent?

Not trying to pry at your religious beliefs or you in particular but I'm always confused when Christians support the death penalty.

Actions have ramifications. We have an obligation to see such penalties through.

It's not a time of rejoicing but rather one of disappointment and continued realization that we fail as man. God has instituted capital punishment in His Word; therefore, it would be presumptuous of us to think that we could institute a higher standard. God has the highest standard of any being; He is perfect. This standard applies not only to us but to Himself. Therefore, He loves to an infinite degree, and He has mercy to an infinite degree. We also see that He has wrath to an infinite degree, and it is all maintained in a perfect balance.

We must recognize that God has given government the authority to determine when capital punishment is due. It is unbiblical to claim that God opposes the death penalty in all instances. Christians should never rejoice when the death penalty is employed, but at the same time, Christians should not fight against the government’s right to execute the perpetrators of the most evil of crimes. There are examples of the death penalty being commanded in the Old Testament.

We must continue to see to it in all cases and scenarios that the innocent are never penalized.

The afterlife for everyone, the guilty and the innocent, is not deserved and nothing we do can change that. None of us can be sin free. We are at the mercy of God with regards to our afterlife. Recognizing and accepting that Christ is the Messiah provides the path to such mercy.

Con_Alma;1193184 wrote:...less day to day management by government... more day to day management by private sector.

Government decisions and actions are not always based on benefit but rather are also based on necessity. The governments responsibility isn't necessarily to provide service but it is to make required services available.

That's not a benefit. That's the difference. I was asking for the benefit.

Unless we save money, the service is better, or there are less errors (which have so far not been true) I don't see the reasoning behind switching to private prisons.

I Wear Pants;1193198 wrote:That's not a benefit. That's the difference. I was asking for the benefit.

Unless we save money, the service is better, or there are less errors (which have so far not been true) I don't see the reasoning behind switching to private prisons.

...and because you don't view it as a benefit I added the reason for doing so in my next sentence. All government actions and decisions are *not based on creating benefit.

Con_Alma;1193195 wrote:Actions have ramifications. We have an obligation to see such penalties through.

It's not a time of rejoicing but rather one of disappointment and continued realization that we fail as man. God has instituted capital punishment in His Word; therefore, it would be presumptuous of us to think that we could institute a higher standard. God has the highest standard of any being; He is perfect. This standard applies not only to us but to Himself. Therefore, He loves to an infinite degree, and He has mercy to an infinite degree. We also see that He has wrath to an infinite degree, and it is all maintained in a perfect balance.

We must recognize that God has given government the authority to determine when capital punishment is due. It is unbiblical to claim that God opposes the death penalty in all instances. Christians should never rejoice when the death penalty is employed, but at the same time, Christians should not fight against the government’s right to execute the perpetrators of the most evil of crimes. There are examples of the death penalty being commanded in the Old Testament.

We must continue to see to it in all cases and scenarios that the innocent are never penalized.

The afterlife for everyone, the guilty and the innocent, is not deserved and nothing we do can change that. None of us can be sin free. We are at the mercy of God with regards to our afterlife. Recognizing and accepting that Christ is the Messiah provides the path to such mercy.

Yes I know:
Exodus 35:2 (Death for working on the Sabbath)

Deuteronomy 13:6-16 (Death penalty for Apostasy)

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (Death penalty for a rebellious son)

Deuteronomy 22:19-25 (Kill non-virgin/kill adulterers/rapists)

Leviticus 20:9 (Death for cursing father or mother)
Leviticus 20:10 (Death for adultery)
Leviticus 20:13 (Death for gay men)
Leviticus 20:15 (Death for bestiality)

Matthew 15:4 (Death for not honouring your father and mother)

Con_Alma;1193200 wrote:...and because you don't view it as a benefit I added the reason for doing so in my next sentence. All government actions and decisions are based on creating benefit.

That makes no sense in this case then. What is the necessity of prisons being privatized if there is no benefit? Why would that be good for us? Your stance seems to be that private services are inherently better which is not always true. If there is a benefit or other reasons for things to be privatized I'm all for it. But privatization for the sake of itself doesn't make sense.

Jesus said that He came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. He did not change the Law. One must look at the context of "eye for an eye." Israel has a special relationship with God as a nation. The Church is not a nation but individuals from every nation on earth. God has given certain authority to governments that individuals do not posses. The idea of "eye for an eye" is a judicial law for running a government and not something applicable to individuals. Thus, if someone kills two of my donkeys then the law says that they must repay with two donkey and not ten donkeys or not one donkey. The same thing goes for "turning the other cheek." This is applicable to individuals and not governmental bodies, such as judges, juries, and the military. God gave Israel laws concerning morality, religious ceremony, and judicial laws. For the Church only the moral laws apply because we are not a nation. For Israel, they needed to have laws that worked on on levels of their society.

In addition, in the New Testament scripture you referenced, the death is one of spiritual death or sinning, seperation from the Father. We can't avoid such a thing and are at the mercy of God.

I Wear Pants;1193213 wrote:...

That makes no sense in this case then. What is the necessity of prisons being privatized if there is no benefit? Why would that be good for us? Your stance seems to be that private services are inherently better which is not always true. If there is a benefit or other reasons for things to be privatized I'm all for it. But privatization for the sake of itself doesn't make sense.

The necessity is that we must have prisons in order to have a means of penalty for the law to be enforced. The government is required to make that means available. It can be directly or indirectly. The goal is to do so as efficiently as possible but more important is that it is made available. There's no obligation to provide the service directly. Some government's entities may very well be better at facilitating it's presence as opposed to directly providing the service. From a State perspective, that's for the Governor to determine. From a Federal perspective it's probably going to be a combination of both, direct and outsourced. Providing all of the service directly may not be ideal from a resource and or management perspective.

The bottom line is it has to be made available. How is a matter of what we or the elected individuals want and expect the government to do directly. I don't care either way.

isadore;1193137 wrote:do you have a link for that claim. Because we have cases like this
Female Ark. prison guard killed checking on inmate

By JILL BLEED, Associated Press
January 21, 2012



LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A convicted murderer stabbed a female guard to death at an east Arkansas prison Friday while she was investigating whether he had an unauthorized pair of shoes, a prison spokeswoman said.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/female-ark-prison-guard-killed-checking-inmate

You do understand that a single anecdotal example doesn't negate my point, correct?

Con_Alma;1193215 wrote:Jesus said that He came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. He did not change the Law. One must look at the context of "eye for an eye." Israel has a special relationship with God as a nation. The Church is not a nation but individuals from every nation on earth. God has given certain authority to governments that individuals do not posses. The idea of "eye for an eye" is a judicial law for running a government and not something applicable to individuals. Thus, if someone kills two of my donkeys then the law says that they must repay with two donkey and not ten donkeys or not one donkey. The same thing goes for "turning the other cheek." This is applicable to individuals and not governmental bodies, such as judges, juries, and the military. God gave Israel laws concerning morality, religious ceremony, and judicial laws. For the Church only the moral laws apply because we are not a nation. For Israel, they needed to have laws that worked on on levels of their society.

In addition, in the New Testament scripture you referenced, the death is one of spiritual death or sinning, seperation from the Father. We can't avoid such thing and are at the mercy of God.

A shocking amount of clarity you have in your interpretations of a thousands year old text that was compiled over various centuries and translated to and from several languages. But that's neither here nor there, your beliefs aren't mine to be criticizing until you use them to advocate for the lessening of others rights based on them which I don't believe you have done yet.

One thing I will say is that the Bible is unarguably misogynistic and as such probably isn't a good basis for a modern moral philosophy in a broad sense. Completely IMO and not really related but whatever.


As for the prisons, I know the government has to make it available and not necessarily provide it. But your argument has been that privatization is a good idea. I asked why and you say that the government isn't required to provide them. Hopefully you can see why that isn't really a satisfying answer as it doesn't demonstrate any benefit whatsoever.

I Wear Pants;1193258 wrote:A shocking amount of clarity you have in your interpretations of a thousands year old text that was compiled over various centuries and translated to and from several languages. But that's neither here nor there, your beliefs aren't mine to be criticizing until you use them to advocate for the lessening of others rights based on them which I don't believe you have done yet.

One thing I will say is that the Bible is unarguably misogynistic and as such probably isn't a good basis for a modern moral philosophy in a broad sense. Completely IMO and not really related but whatever.


As for the prisons, I know the government has to make it available and not necessarily provide it. But your argument has been that privatization is a good idea. I asked why and you say that the government isn't required to provide them. Hopefully you can see why that isn't really a satisfying answer as it doesn't demonstrate any benefit whatsoever.

There's is little doubt we have different beliefs.

You are assumming much with regards to my posts on prison privatisation. Can you show me one post whereby I have stated that privatizing is a good idea?

In addition, I though I answered your question with regards to what benefit privatization would have. If it's wasn't to your satisfaction I will make try and make it even more simple.

The answer is none, nor do I personally need to see a benefit for it to be an appropriate action by the government in fulfilling their obligation to provide the service.

The purpose of the government is to provide the service. If the elected officials do not want to manage such day to day activities but would rather spend such management effort and time elsewhere it is appropriate to outsource the service

I Wear Pants;1192851 wrote:How have Super PACs and lobbying been working out for you?

Not very well I assume.

Why would you assume that? Can you give me examples of where it has harmed you?

I Wear Pants;1192851 wrote:Earmarks are often because of lobbying whether by corporations or politicians either trying to "buy" local votes or being convinced to by local lobbying groups.

And Super PACs get rid of your "out in the open" scenario.

Again, taking corporations out of the mix isn't going to change incentives to earmark, which is driven entirely by re-election efforts. Removing the lobbyists won't remove that incentive.

Con_Alma;1193264 wrote:There's is little doubt we have different beliefs.

You are summing much with regards to my posts on prison privatisation. Can you show me one post whereby I have stated that privatizing is a good idea?

In addition, I though I answered your question with regards to what benefit privatization would have. If it's wasn't to your satisfaction I will make try and make it even more simple.

The answer is none, nor do I personally need to see a benefit for it to be an appropriate action by the government in fulfilling their obligation to provide the service.

The purpose of the government is to provide the service. If the elected officials do not want to manage such day to day activities but would rather spend such management effort and time elsewhere it is appropriate to outsource the service

So you were just being devils advocate with your prison privatization remarks then?

And saving time/"management effort" would be a benefit. But then you add in the questionable savings increases and various other problems inherent with privatization that I've discussed (one being giving an incentive to attempting to increase our already unacceptably high levels of incarceration). Just because the government doesn't necessarily have to be the one directly providing something like prison services doesn't mean that it automatically is a good idea to privatize. There are problems with that as well.

gut;1193265 wrote:Why would you assume that? Can you give me examples of where it has harmed you?



Again, taking corporations out of the mix isn't going to change incentives to earmark, which is driven entirely by re-election efforts. Removing the lobbyists won't remove that incentive.

Yeah and why do they give earmarks and such? To benefit those groups and organizations that give them lobbying/campaign funds.

We can argue about it all day but both ends suck. It's a circular action path that only results in the general public being bent over. Stop it on both sides.

But more directly, how are Super PACs a good thing?