Extra context (from Wikipedia but somewhat buried):
The two judges receiving bribes were sentenced to 17.5 & 28 years in prison respectively.
The bribing company is still in operation today. One of the co-owners was sentenced to 18 months in prison for "failing to report a felony". The other co-owner at the time is now the sole owner and was not charged. His brother was and still is the District Attorney.
I loved to throw around "What's next? Private prisons??" when speaking about some crazy privatization ideas. That, until I learned it's an actual thing in US. Who would have guessed. I think I was 32 at that time
You can think of housing for the homeless as prison for the homeless.. without the additional costs of guards, high walls, profits to private prison owners and kickbacks to politicians.
Also a better chance of better outcomes for many, raising taxes from those that pay taxes (over and above those who are homeless but also have jobs and pay taxes .. (yes, they're a thing)).
I cannot shake the feeling that the bulk of those social benefits could be captured by offering a very compact "cage-home" like storage closet, that can be locked and allows sleeping and storing one's valuables, with access to bathroom and a minimal food preparation areas.
Nobody should be forced to sleep rough, in the cold and dirt, where they are vulnerable to rapes, theft and beatings, such a life turns the kindest soul into an animal. 20 sq. feet of lockable closet with a mattress and shelves to store one's minimal belongings could mean maintaining their humanity and preventing turning them into dangerous criminals.
This would be so cheap to offer that it could be a basic human right, I would certainly pay taxes for it before other stupidities promoted as measures against crime. It's definitely not an incentive to be poor, those who can afford can rent a larger space, it would be a minimal guaranteed, free baseline: no matter how bad you fail in life, you will still get to be treated like a human being.
If you look at actual programs to house homeless people in practice, prison is a bargain. In Portland a charitable estimate to house 1/3 of the homeless is 320k/unit to build + 20k/year/unit to maintain.
Where shall you house these homeless people? During the pandemic NYC tried using vacant hotels to house homeless people. Surprise surprise the areas immediately surrounding the hotels turned into a drug and needle playground, and people evacuated. It was an epic disaster.
People with this idea are almost always from the suburbs. Plenty of homeless people are merely down on their luck, but many (most?) others have mental issues or have crippling drug addiction. No one wants that shit near their home or children.
You can certainly try and force it, but you can’t force people to tolerate it. People will just leave, and the nearby areas will turn into a slum.
This problem is described, wrongly, as homelessness, by both advocates for ending open drug scenes, and by activists who view themselves as working on behalf of the unhoused.
That's not the effect of their activism. The effect of their advocacy is to increase misery. Open drug scenes make the city unsafe. Open drug scenes draw the temporarily homeless into a shadow market of addictions and prostitution.
Open drug scenes are bad for everyone who has to be near them, but they are particularly destructive to the mentally ill addicts who constitute them.
I'm sure private prisons would love to turn all of us into literal slaves, but if we reduced the number of them down to the correct 0%, urban residents would still be demanding the end of open drug scenes.
They are right to do so. Supporting open drug scenes is supporting misery, harm, assault, theft, overdose, rape.
Don't support open drug scenes. Make sure your donations to help the unhoused don't support open drug scenes (this is difficult).
Also, let's end private prisons. It was never a good idea and it won't get better with time.
I wonder if all countries are this ideologically dogmatic. On one hand, you have PragerU. On the other hand, you have organizations like this that insist we need to give severe drug addicts private hotel rooms that they can trash.
You hear a lot about Finland's success with homelessness being credited to housing first. However, they also are very aggressive with compulsory psychiatric treatment, which this author would consider unethical.
There’s nothing contradictory with compulsory psychiatry, providing housing, and ending the war on drugs. The US’ hardcore line on drugs has clearly been an abject failure and its time to reverse the damage we’ve done before its too late.
Finland definitely does not have aggressive compulsory psychiatric treatment. About the only case where you can get involuntarily admitted is if you actively try or threaten to harm yourself or others.
Workhouses used to be a thing until the mid 19 hundreds.
Apart from the obvious human rights issues it did not work very well.
Because the homeless are usually homeless for a reason and that does not go away if you put them in a prison and force them to do some mindless menial task.
The article points out how homeless people aren't popular or often defended. This reality is probably the biggest force against homeless people. Most people don't even want to consider their existence at all, especially if you see them daily. I don't see how trying to divert attention from this harsh reality that exposes weakness in our ability to collectively solve problems actually helps anything. If private prisons we're outlawed would all of even most of homeless issues eventually just go away? Is that something people really believe?
The article makes it out to be some us VS them conspiracy. Where there's only a single black and white reason for the problem and can be resolved so easily...
Now, it is sus that some billionaire is bankrolling huge influence campaigns. But to believe housing will solve everything about homelessness is foolish.
Homelessness criminalisation push is because people just don't want to deal with all the shit homeless groups bring. Smelling like piss, hordes of beggers, make shift housing everything, the feeling of being unsafe and crime. Surprised?
The author works as a prison guard at a private prison in Louisiana and the book is interlaced with his experiences as a prison guard and the history of prisons in America.
The criminalization of the unhoused, as well as the policies that create unhoused people go far beyond private prisons.
As Ruth Gilmore and other abolitionists have meticulously detailed over decades, governments on all levels have helped build a system in which enormous flows of money exist to unhouse, cage and ultimately diminish the lives of thousands of people in the united states.
Incentives matter. On the other hand, the link here seems tenuous. Is 8VC so tied to private prisons that they run an astroturf campaign to lock up people without housing? Or does a significantly wealthy person have enough money spread around that a motivated reasoner can find just about any link they'd like?
The real voice behind these voices is The Cicero Institute, a conservative think tank founded by billionaire Joe Lonsdale. He is significantly invested in the private prison industry through his venture capital firm, 8VC.
Lobbyists from The Cicero Institute are currently pressuring lawmakers in states around the country to adopt laws . . .
Lobbyists from Cicero call their proposal the “Reducing Street Homelessness Act” . . . . It includes specific language designed to turn anyone sleeping in public into a criminal – at law enforcement’s discretion, which means enforcement will be uneven. It also proposes that states divert funding for permanent housing solutions into temporary encampment projects
The key to reaching a real solution is to build _consensus_ behind an _accounting_ solution that traces tax dollars all the way through to economic outcomes for these people. Otherwise any discussion about this is just people getting into the favorite parts of their feelings. e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU1V2GM1oTI&t=801s
well, I can tell you that "private prisons" are not the only cause for this push.
it's also that the other victims of the homeless don't particularly care for the needles, petty-thefts, fires, trash, vandalism, muggings, squatting, drugs, and rampant crime that goes hand-in-hand with the homeless encampments. sorry, i lost all sympathy out of personal experience with the 90 - 99% bad apples.
i don't dispute that private prisons might also see it in their best interests to push for this, but that's not the only reason. there's a hypothetical ideal, and there's probably plenty of real examples of sober, blameless, victimized houseless folks that just need help. but then there's the stark reality that 90-99% of the time is really not pretty.
Best thing, for the bad apples included, is to sober up in lockdown, not release back on the street.
"Prisoner #582954, your one year sentence has been completed. Do you currently have confirmed evidence of housing that is available to you immediately?"
"...No?"
"Prisoner #582954, you are under arrest for the crime of homelessness. You have the right to remain silent..."
I think private prisons and criminalization of homelessness are crimes on their own. How on Earth having such system lets the US call itself civilized country is beyond my understanding. Acts like this belong in my view to some barbaric societies.
Homeless people in US, in particular in cities like SF, are a perfect tool to raise money. SF's budget of >1bn USD means a ton of grift.
NGOs of all sorts descend on this money pile, with zero incentive to actually reduce homelessness - if they did, the money tap would dry up.
It is a self-reinforcing loop until the actual government steps in and resolves the matter. Very "unpopular" in this weirdly lefties/libertarian society.
[+] [-] isolli|3 years ago|reply
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
[+] [-] lucideer|3 years ago|reply
The two judges receiving bribes were sentenced to 17.5 & 28 years in prison respectively.
The bribing company is still in operation today. One of the co-owners was sentenced to 18 months in prison for "failing to report a felony". The other co-owner at the time is now the sole owner and was not charged. His brother was and still is the District Attorney.
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|3 years ago|reply
How would a "important things in the world" algorithm work ?
One that is not "maximise engagement" but "maximise understanding of important shit"
Thank you for posting
[+] [-] cuteboy19|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dgan|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kaushikc|3 years ago|reply
United States — 629
Rwanda — 580
Turkmenistan — 576
El Salvador — 564
Cuba — 510
Palau — 478
British Virgin Islands (U.K. territory) — 477
Thailand — 445
Panama — 423
Saint Kitts and Nevis — 423
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarcera...
[+] [-] defrost|3 years ago|reply
https://believehousing.org.au/housing/how-housing-benefits-p...
You can think of housing for the homeless as prison for the homeless.. without the additional costs of guards, high walls, profits to private prison owners and kickbacks to politicians.
Also a better chance of better outcomes for many, raising taxes from those that pay taxes (over and above those who are homeless but also have jobs and pay taxes .. (yes, they're a thing)).
[+] [-] manholio|3 years ago|reply
Nobody should be forced to sleep rough, in the cold and dirt, where they are vulnerable to rapes, theft and beatings, such a life turns the kindest soul into an animal. 20 sq. feet of lockable closet with a mattress and shelves to store one's minimal belongings could mean maintaining their humanity and preventing turning them into dangerous criminals.
This would be so cheap to offer that it could be a basic human right, I would certainly pay taxes for it before other stupidities promoted as measures against crime. It's definitely not an incentive to be poor, those who can afford can rent a larger space, it would be a minimal guaranteed, free baseline: no matter how bad you fail in life, you will still get to be treated like a human being.
[+] [-] n8cpdx|3 years ago|reply
Shack-based safe rest villages (temporary transitional housing) are $30+k/unit. https://www.portland.gov/ryan/funding-safe-rest-villages but it is taboo to have barriers, so sometimes they have to be shut down because they are too dangerous. https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2022/05/28/old-town-homeless...
Do not underestimate the homeless industrial complex.
https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2018/09/07/one-cost-estimate...
[+] [-] AlexTWithBeard|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] parkingrift|3 years ago|reply
People with this idea are almost always from the suburbs. Plenty of homeless people are merely down on their luck, but many (most?) others have mental issues or have crippling drug addiction. No one wants that shit near their home or children.
You can certainly try and force it, but you can’t force people to tolerate it. People will just leave, and the nearby areas will turn into a slum.
[+] [-] samatman|3 years ago|reply
9% of prisons are private, which is 9% too many, but it's the citizens who have to endure open drug scenes who are behind the push to end them.
[0]: https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/259053
This problem is described, wrongly, as homelessness, by both advocates for ending open drug scenes, and by activists who view themselves as working on behalf of the unhoused.
That's not the effect of their activism. The effect of their advocacy is to increase misery. Open drug scenes make the city unsafe. Open drug scenes draw the temporarily homeless into a shadow market of addictions and prostitution.
Open drug scenes are bad for everyone who has to be near them, but they are particularly destructive to the mentally ill addicts who constitute them.
I'm sure private prisons would love to turn all of us into literal slaves, but if we reduced the number of them down to the correct 0%, urban residents would still be demanding the end of open drug scenes.
They are right to do so. Supporting open drug scenes is supporting misery, harm, assault, theft, overdose, rape.
Don't support open drug scenes. Make sure your donations to help the unhoused don't support open drug scenes (this is difficult).
Also, let's end private prisons. It was never a good idea and it won't get better with time.
[+] [-] Aunche|3 years ago|reply
You hear a lot about Finland's success with homelessness being credited to housing first. However, they also are very aggressive with compulsory psychiatric treatment, which this author would consider unethical.
[+] [-] usednet|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qlm|3 years ago|reply
It's a massively inefficient "solution" that does nothing to address the issue. Provide housing, don't give a ton of money to hotel chains.
[+] [-] Sharlin|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] honkycat|3 years ago|reply
Based on what?
You think the author would be against additional mental health resources for homeless people? I highly doubt it.
[+] [-] LordHeini|3 years ago|reply
Apart from the obvious human rights issues it did not work very well.
Because the homeless are usually homeless for a reason and that does not go away if you put them in a prison and force them to do some mindless menial task.
[+] [-] alephr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] langsoul-com|3 years ago|reply
Now, it is sus that some billionaire is bankrolling huge influence campaigns. But to believe housing will solve everything about homelessness is foolish.
Homelessness criminalisation push is because people just don't want to deal with all the shit homeless groups bring. Smelling like piss, hordes of beggers, make shift housing everything, the feeling of being unsafe and crime. Surprised?
[+] [-] AndyMcConachie|3 years ago|reply
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38561954-american-prison
The author works as a prison guard at a private prison in Louisiana and the book is interlaced with his experiences as a prison guard and the history of prisons in America.
[+] [-] oliwarner|3 years ago|reply
I wonder if the shoe will ever drop and they figure out that preventative welfare is cheaper and better for everyone (except private prisons).
[+] [-] charlescearl|3 years ago|reply
As Ruth Gilmore and other abolitionists have meticulously detailed over decades, governments on all levels have helped build a system in which enormous flows of money exist to unhouse, cage and ultimately diminish the lives of thousands of people in the united states.
https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520242012/golden-gulag
[+] [-] adolph|3 years ago|reply
The real voice behind these voices is The Cicero Institute, a conservative think tank founded by billionaire Joe Lonsdale. He is significantly invested in the private prison industry through his venture capital firm, 8VC.
Lobbyists from The Cicero Institute are currently pressuring lawmakers in states around the country to adopt laws . . .
Lobbyists from Cicero call their proposal the “Reducing Street Homelessness Act” . . . . It includes specific language designed to turn anyone sleeping in public into a criminal – at law enforcement’s discretion, which means enforcement will be uneven. It also proposes that states divert funding for permanent housing solutions into temporary encampment projects
https://www.8vc.com/companies
https://ciceroinstitute.org/issues/homelessness/
[+] [-] ShuffleBoard|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arwhatever|3 years ago|reply
― Milton Friedman
[+] [-] fargle|3 years ago|reply
it's also that the other victims of the homeless don't particularly care for the needles, petty-thefts, fires, trash, vandalism, muggings, squatting, drugs, and rampant crime that goes hand-in-hand with the homeless encampments. sorry, i lost all sympathy out of personal experience with the 90 - 99% bad apples.
i don't dispute that private prisons might also see it in their best interests to push for this, but that's not the only reason. there's a hypothetical ideal, and there's probably plenty of real examples of sober, blameless, victimized houseless folks that just need help. but then there's the stark reality that 90-99% of the time is really not pretty.
Best thing, for the bad apples included, is to sober up in lockdown, not release back on the street.
[+] [-] Animats|3 years ago|reply
[1] https://joelonsdale.com/philanthropy/
[+] [-] Spoom|3 years ago|reply
"...No?"
"Prisoner #582954, you are under arrest for the crime of homelessness. You have the right to remain silent..."
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] FpUser|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shadowtree|3 years ago|reply
NGOs of all sorts descend on this money pile, with zero incentive to actually reduce homelessness - if they did, the money tap would dry up.
It is a self-reinforcing loop until the actual government steps in and resolves the matter. Very "unpopular" in this weirdly lefties/libertarian society.
[+] [-] willhslade|3 years ago|reply