Now, TBF, the Feds rely on privates a lot more than the publics do--at nearly twice the rate (even though 76% of ppl in privates are held by the states). But still: 85% of Feds in publics!
But: don't see how this addresses racial equity, for two equally important reasons.
First, and less appreciated, if you're concerned abt racial impact of privatization in prisons, the PRISONS are not the thing to focus on.
Focus on Bob Barker (private commissary, and not that one), Securus (pay-phones), etc.
HUGE private fees w racially disparate impacts.
Second, no one ever seems to game out what closing the privates will do.
It reduces capacity, but there's a lot of excess capacity out there right now. Will the Feds just contract with, say, Texas (not a private! it's public!)?
And if they d cut back pops, who will be released?
Also, this is just DOJ, not DHS. The nature of all this is confusing--the BOP lists 15K ppl in privates on its website, while BJS has it at 27K, and wonder if those 13K are immigration cases--but think a lot of those awful places that enraged us are CBP/ICE: DHS, not DOJ.
That a lot of those in private BOP facilities are facing deportation--which is my understanding of the non-random nature of who ends up in private BOP facilities--only further suggests that the overall racial impact of this will be slight.
As always, this overpowering emphasis on the privates is far more feel-good spectacle than solid policy.
And that's before you get to the inescapable fact that the public prisons profit off ppl as well, only at vaster scale, and with seemingly similar levels of cruelty.
I'd also add, to make this all the more complicated, that esp in the south--where most Fed private prisons are--we often see that correctional staff tend to be people of color.
That's NOT a defense of prisons-as-public-works, but it def complicates racial impact analysis.
Finally, if you really want to roil up this argument, it's possible that we can give privates better incentives than publics, and that relying on private might actually ADVANCE long-run mass-reductions in capacity: arizonastatelawjournal.org/wp-content/upl…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Every time I argue that less-harsh sentences are the better ones that all should receive, I hear this: "leniency for all requires severity for all first."
This strikes me as a complete miscomprehension of the politics of punishment.
Once you pass a harsh law, it's really hard to be That Guy who repeals it.
It's also why I think we should emphasize leniency when DAs set plea deals over expanding parole.* It's easier to set a shorter sentence up front than shorten a long one.
When Obama commuted Chelsea Mannings sentence, there was a lot of outrage.
But it was fascinating outrage. No one that I saw said "7 years is too short." Everyone said "1/3 of her 21 years is too short."
If the orig sentence had been 8 yrs, bet far far less outrage.
"Our party egged people on to storm the Capitol, murder a police officer, and appear to have ensured that the Capitol was under-protected in an effort to overturn a legitimate election.
You've... pointed that out. And demanded accountability.
This would be pathetic, if it weren't such clear evidence that the GOP not only have learned nothing from this, but is doubling down on its culture of right-wing victimhood.
It's just going to keep getting worse.
But seriously: this is disgusting and pathetic--and dangerous.
And again: I don't want to hear any GOPers talk about the need to "take personal responsibility" ever again.
Having stoked an insurrection, they now equate demands for accountability with "playing politics."
So this disability q is fantastic. The 25A and the Presidential Succession Act do not define "disability" and provide no method for automatically removing authority from an unwilling President.
We should stop calling it "Court Packing" and instead call it the "Court Modernization Act."
Which, to be fair, it is. Does it make sense to keep running SCOTUS the exact same way we did before penicillin, the car, the computer, pretty much all of modern life?
Which reminds me: I had a judge email me the afternoon (!!) of 9/11/01 to say he was grounded in Chicago and could just interview me then. And I said yes, bc... young, and you “don’t say no”! And so I sat in a hotel bar, watching the towers fall on repeat and just... it went bad.
With hindsight, I mean... who emails a law student to conduct an interview bc he might as well, given he’s grounded due to a national catastrophe we are STILL working thru.
He looked out the hotel window. I looked at the bar, and thus at the TVs. It was surreal. And wrong.