This is why I am opposed to privatized prisons.

[Sava]

i don't think y ou know what execute means

[snoopy369]

I'm curious, when a bank forecloses on a house it doesn't own, why do we not see the bank officers being charged with breaking and entering, trespassing, theft and fraud?

Largely, because the foreclosed upon have very little ability to fight back - even if they aren't actually the ones being foreclosed on, a lot of these folks aren't well off (and the ones who fight back effectively, and use all of the tools truly available to them, don't make the news). The bank certainly is liable for its actions, and at least in some instances was held responsible; several of the large settlements in the last few years were a result of various errors, including the above.

The bank officers themselves wouldn't be charged with criminal actions because the damages are primarily financial, not criminal; while you _could_ jail people for these acts, I guess, it makes more sense to restitute the victims financially. Jail time, after all, doesn't really do much for the victims of the crime (except make them feel better, perhaps?). Fraud doesn't apply since there's no intentional fraud, and the others either don't really apply either, or are misdemeanors (in all cases, I think, except theft depending on the amount actually stolen).

[snoopy369]

i don't think y ou know what execute means

I don't think _you_ understand what execute means. "Terminate the existence of a person". If corporations are people, then terminating the existence of a corporation is execution.

[kentonio]

The bank officers themselves wouldn't be charged with criminal actions because the damages are primarily financial, not criminal; while you _could_ jail people for these acts, I guess, it makes more sense to restitute the victims financially.

Now here's where I have the issue. On one hand you're saying that corporations are just groups of people, yet apparently when those people commit crimes, they receive treatment that normal people would never receive. Why exactly is someone breaking into your house not a criminal act of damage against you? If any individual broke in, changed the locks and sold the house, then would they not be committing crimes?

Jail time, after all, doesn't really do much for the victims of the crime (except make them feel better, perhaps?). Fraud doesn't apply since there's no intentional fraud, and the others either don't really apply either, or are misdemeanors (in all cases, I think, except theft depending on the amount actually stolen).

1) Since when did we jail people purely to do something to help the victim? How does locking up a rapist do anything for the victim (except make them feel better)?

2) By selling a property they do not own, the bank is making money. So it's not fraud because despite profiting from their crime it was all just a big misunderstanding? Can we expect individual citizens to receive that kind of understanding in court?

3) Breaking and entering and the theft of a property worth potentially a couple of hundred thousand dollars are misdemeanors?!?!

4) Do criminal charges prevent someone from also taking civil action to recover assets?

[Sava]

ken lay isn't really dead either

he's sitting on a beach earning 20%

[kentonio]

Dp

[Sava]

i've always wanted to be in the middle of a DP with you

[kentonio]

[MRT144]

With corporations there is a profit motive to lock people up. With state run prisons there is a motive to not spend more money than necessary locking people up. One results in less freedom the other more.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

.

edit: Of course MrFun's reply only makes sense if he knows reg's replying to him, which means he already clicked "view post" and isn't really making use of the ignore feature.

I used to have a modicum of pity for his ignorance, now I realize it is feigned and practiced.

[snoopy369]

With corporations there is a profit motive to lock people up. With state run prisons there is a motive to not spend more money than necessary locking people up. One results in less freedom the other more.

Not true at all, the other really - government agencies want more money = influence/power for their department.

Personally I'm not shocked to see this occur, but I don't think it's important in the big picture. Some people did something bad, got caught. I don't think this (or the reverse) is an argument for or against privatizing prisons; the other issues (for and against) are much more significant.

[MRT144]

Not true at all, the other really - government agencies want more money = influence/power for their department.

Personally I'm not shocked to see this occur, but I don't think it's important in the big picture. Some people did something bad, got caught. I don't think this (or the reverse) is an argument for or against privatizing prisons; the other issues (for and against) are much more significant.

The money isn't spent on prisons but on enforcement/prevention.

[Felch]

With corporations there is a profit motive to lock people up. With state run prisons there is a motive to not spend more money than necessary locking people up. One results in less freedom the other more.

Maybe if we changed how prison corporations were rewarded, this would be less of an issue. Pay them a flat fee to run the prison regardless of population, with bonuses for lower recidivism rates or something like that. One thing is for certain; neither public nor private prisons are doing what they need to be doing.

[Sava]

Legalizing weed and releasing non-violent drug offenders would probably be a huge step in the right direction.

Then this whole debate can go back to the cap-com fools... who can argue their respective ideological views until the cows come home.

[MrFun]

MrFun, the problem is that the argument "Corporations as entities have (mostly) the same rights-as-entities as people do vis-a-vis the Constitution, because corporations are vehicles for personal expression/etc." is not identical to "Corporations are people", and thus you have the right-wingers here correctly objecting. You actually can largely make the same argument you are currently making if you want to, but it doesn't have the 'sound byte' that "Corporations are people" does.

eh - fair enough