I strongly oppose for-profit prisons, but the whole "prisons are big business!" trope the NYT likes to trot out is bullshit. For-profit prison companies are opportunists, taking advantage of the trend of growing prison populations combined with the heavy emphasis in the 1990's on trimming the number of public employees.
But CCA didn't create the massive U.S. prison population. Voters did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law#Enactment_by_.... Frightened suburbanite baby boomers watching the news, shrieking "Just Say No!" at school events, voting for Three Strikes' laws and aggressive drug enforcement. I.e. NYT's core readership.
> But CCA didn't create the massive U.S. prison population. Voters did
This I absolutely agree with.
> Frightened suburbanite baby boomers watching the news, shrieking "Just Say No!" at school events, voting for Three Strikes' laws and aggressive drug enforcement. I.e. NYT's core readership.
In your haste to criticize the NYT, did you perhaps miss that such a target audience is precisely who they should be pointing out the deleterious effects of their voting patterns to?
> Here's the thing. A few million is enough to let my mom know that there is a "tough on crime" proposition on the ballot and she should go out and vote. Ten times that much won't convince her that being "tough on crime" is a bad thing, that her granddaughter isn't in constant danger of getting kidnapped and sold into sex trafficking, etc.
Agreed.
But several million to get her to think, "Corporations are using prisons to needlessly jail people"? That could work.
While I agree in general, there was serious lobbying for the Three Strikes Law by people who stood to gain financially. It may have happened even without their support, but they thought it was worth the payoff to put in millions of dollars.
You can't get American voters to agree on anything by that kind of margin, other than apparently the idea that you should get life in prison for stealing a few hundred dollars each on three separate occasions.
Honestly, what really irks me about the "prison lobbying" angle is that it's just a way to shirk responsibility. "Oh, it's those lobbyists that are to blame, not my parents, friends, or me."
That's the one the NPR article talks about (unless there was another in 1994).
Then came the "Three Strikes You're Out" law in 1994. Offenders who had committed even a minor third felony — like shoplifting — got life sentences.
Voters at the time were inundated with television ads, pamphlets and press conferences from Gov. Pete Wilson. "Three strikes is the most important victory yet in the fight to take back our streets," Wilson told crowds.
But behind these efforts to get voters to approve these laws was one major player: the correctional officers union.
In three decades, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association has become one of the most powerful political forces in California. The union has contributed millions of dollars to support "three strikes" and other laws that lengthen sentences and increase parole sanctions. It donated $1 million to Wilson after he backed the three strikes law.
And the result for the union has been dramatic. Since the laws went into effect and the inmate population boomed, the union grew from 2,600 officers to 45,000 officers. Salaries jumped: In 1980, the average officer earned $15,000 a year; today, one in every 10 officers makes more than $100,000 a year.
Lance Corcoran, spokesman for the union, says it does what is best for its members.
"We have advocated successfully for our members," he said.
... EDIT
You also show how it worked in Washington, which is a good comparison. Was there similar lobbying there? (This is an earnest question, I do not know the answer.)
Here's a story about I-593: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/1996/may/15/citizen-ant.... It took $200k to get on the ballot, apparently funded by the gun lobby. Meanwhile, environmental organizations spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on persuasion efforts, and can't get shit passed. Persuasion is cheap when people already agree with you.
Here's the thing. A few million is enough to let my mom know that there is a "tough on crime" proposition on the ballot and she should go out and vote. Ten times that much won't convince her that being "tough on crime" is a bad thing, that her granddaughter isn't in constant danger of getting kidnapped and sold into sex trafficking, etc.
It's not bullshit, because you don't need to own a for-profit prison to profit from the prison-industrial complex. Even non-profit prisons (my, is that a weird phrase) result in the transfer of tax dollars to prison staff, construction workers, suppliers of food, surveillance equipment, and other necessary materials, and so on. Oh, and don't forget cheap prison labor. So clearly, many groups have a vested interest in maintaining and even growing a high prison population.
I strongly oppose for-profit prisons, but the whole "prisons are big business!" trope the NYT likes to trot out is bullshit. For-profit prison companies are opportunists, taking advantage of the trend of growing prison populations combined with the heavy emphasis in the 1990's on trimming the number of public employees.
But CCA didn't create the massive U.S. prison population. Voters did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law#Enactment_by_.... Frightened suburbanite baby boomers watching the news, shrieking "Just Say No!" at school events, voting for Three Strikes' laws and aggressive drug enforcement. I.e. NYT's core readership.