Humanities desk
< June 3	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 4[edit]

Arguments in favor of privatization of jails[edit]

I've done a Google search but haven't been able to find anything in favor of privatizing jails. I mostly get articles against privatizing jails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.56.99 (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there’s only one: they’re supposed to be cheaper for the public, but even that is rather questionable (as with many other privatization and public/private partnership schemes). Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 00:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go to any jurisdiction that has ever privatized its jails and look for their public statements announcing their decision to go down this path. Or, where relevant, the debates in their legislatures. I would be most surprised if the money-saving aspect were the sole justification for the decision. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several overlapping and mutually reinforcing reasons for the rise in private_prisons, not all based on cost reduction, but rather the uncertainty and many years of time it takes states to get voter approval for actually paying for and building the mass incarceration facilities voters say they want. These synergistic reasons include:

Brown v. Plata, the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 and mandating states release prisoners if overcrowding was chronic, a problem exacerbated by mandatory sentencing laws, three-strikes laws, and truth in sentencing policies and legislation that abolish or curtail parole.

Toss in good old-fashioned bribery, as documented in the kids for cash scandal, to boot. Cash money talks better than arguments when it comes to politicians.

One source that actually discusses and cites sources on these and other arguments (job creation! economic development!) for privatization is:

"Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mass Incarceration". American Civil Liberties Union. November 2011. Summary page; PDF has detailed coverage: Banking on Bondage (267 sources cited, many from advocates)

By the way, you mentioned you "mostly get articles against" - adding "pro and con" to a search phrase for most current controversial topics can often be helpful. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A clear advantage of a private prison system is that it moves money from the tax-paying public to investors. As these typically are already rich, they are better at handling money (they simply have more experience). Also consider the second-order effect. A publicly run prison is a cost center. The public has an interest in keeping incarceration to a minimum, and to provide training and education that keeps prisoners from becoming re-offenders. This would tend to reduce the number of prisoners - obviously a bad thing is a land where big is beautiful! A privately run prison system, on the other hand, is a profit center. The bigger, the better. And owners can provide an environment where it enhances the chance that the prisoner will become a permanent customer. This will increase revenue in a virtuous spiral - obviously a good thing! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A clear advantage of a private prison system is that it moves money from the tax-paying public to investors. " To me, that's an obvious disadvantage. It makes the motive a purely profit driven one, rather than one of providing a principles based public service. That is NOT a good thing. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fairly clear that Stephan's comments were intended ironically.

It's worth noting, though, that the pecuniary incentives can apply to government prisons as well. This is particularly evident in California, in regard to the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, which reliably opposes measures that might reduce incarceration, threatening their members' overtime. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also this 2016 RefDesk question: "For profit prisons". One reference that came out of that in respect of the UK experience was: Momentum stalls on UK’s private prisons - Competition helps improve jail standards but early advantages start to fade. Alansplodge (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ha, weird to see something i asked. Sad that some answers were complete rubbish and perhaps worse (looking at the 'business secret' part or parroting the table of content of an article without having read it and so pass on blatantly wrong information to me). At least it showed me not to pose any further questions here, haha. Some things were helpful to be fair. But i have to say, you are doing excellent work compared to most other people here Alan. So thank you again for being helpful and i hope more regulars would take a page out of your book. 91.96.209.58 (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing thread, at OP's insulting statements and summary: "showed me not to pose any further questions here" to save editors' time and goodwill. See OP's further insults to voluntary, unpaid reference desk editors and similar vow to not return at Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2018_March_16#For_profit_prisons -- Paulscrawl (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've unhatted the thread but hatted this aside. I think you're confusing different editors. 75.80.56.99 the IP used by the OP belongs to Time Warner and geolocates to San Diego. 91.96.209.58 the IP above belongs to EWE-Tel GmbH and geolocates to Gnarrenburg (in Lower Saxony). 91.49.67.228, 91.49.65.161 and 91.49.69.67 the IP in the old thread currently belongs to Deutsche Telekom AG and geolocates to Bremen. (Note the thread is from 2018 not 2016.) From the above commentary, I see a clear acknowledgement that all the German IPs are the same editor. I don't see any acknowledgment this applies to the OP. Actually it seems to me if the German editor had been the same editor as the OP, they likely would have said something about it like "At least it showed me not to pose any further questions here but I'm glad I changed my mind since this thread was helpful" or "At least it showed me not to pose any further questions here and I should have stuck with that given the responses here". Given they don't seem to be the same editor, the OP's question itself seems resonable since it's a request for references and not for debate. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is some limited commentary here [1]. (Mostly it's about the recidivism reduction model, and it acknowledges you don't necessarily need a private prison for that.) Maybe more interesting are the links at the end of that article [2] [3] [4]. While these aren't extremely pro-private prisons, they definitely aren't arguing against private prisons. The last one is only about health care for prisons/prisoners, so whether you want to include that I'm not sure. These articles themselves include links to stuff like [5] which may be of interest. (They also talk about what Trovatore mentioned above.)

As JackOfOz has said, looking at the debates in legislatures or around the time changes were proposed or prisons opened would surely find articles. E.g. [6] on page 302 offers some support. Not really substantial debate but this PR supports private prisons [7]. This also offers some support [8]. There is this fairly positive article about the (now) only private prison in NZ [9] before it opened, although it doesn't really include any arguments. This alsodoesn't really offer many arguments but is clearly not negative [10]. (It also helps if you know what to look out for. E.g. I wouldn't look out for articles supporting private prisons on the website of Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand except perhaps if it's some attempt to pick out perceived flaws in them. I may expect to seem them on the website of ACT New Zealand.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A problematic Rembrandt image[edit]

The image on the right has two parallel descriptions here. The file describes it as "Haman Recognizes His Fate" (also: File:Rembrandt - Haman Recognizes his Fate - detail 01.jpg) and the same image is also called "David and Uriah". There are also wikiarticles in Polish and Dutch that I cannot read. Please help, DGtal (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some academic debate about this, e.g. here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is a subject of disagreement. The Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, which has housed the painting since 1773, describes it as depicting Haman (link); the Uriah interpretation appears to have arisen in the mid 20th century. The Dutch WP article, which unfortunately lacks relevant inline citations, notes the following: The painting has been known under the title uses by the museum (Haman Recognizes His Fate) ever since it acquired it in 1773, and the Uriah theory was first suggested by Abraham Bredius (1855-1946). Several studies in the latter half of the 20th century, particularly that by Madlyn Kahr (see above, and also here) have reinforced this latter hypothesis. If about Uriah, the painting depicts the moment he is sent back to war by king David (right); if about Haman, it depicts him after being ordered by king Ahashuerus (right) to honor Mordecai. - Lindert (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: From Madlyn Kahr (1965; see link I posted above): "The earliest name we know of for the Hermitage painting is 'Haman's Condemnation', the title that appeared on a mezzotint made by Richard Houston in 1772 after Rembrandt's canvas, which was then in London, in the collection of John Blackwood". And in contradiction to the Dutch article, Madlyn Kahr in her 1965 article rejects the Uriah interpretation: "..., it seems to me that these are sufficient grounds for rejecting the interpretation of the Hermitage painting as 'David and Uriah'". - Lindert (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knesset transcripts[edit]

Are these available online? Looking for 1950 debates. Hebrew is fine. Amisom (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try here. DGtal (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt go back that far Amisom (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]