Thanks very much for writing this! I have always thought this was a great idea, and a huge mistake that reformists focus on abolishing private prisons, rather than using them. With privatisation you get what you pay for, and at the moment we pay for volume.
Minor note: you define CrimesBob as
the maximum amount that we (as a society) would spend to prevent it. Thus, since we do not have infinite money, equivalent compensation for the nonmonetary effects of a crime must always exist (CrimesBob).
However, might it be better to define it as the minimum amount we would have to be paid in order to release someone? If someone is expected to cause spectacularly large amounts of disutility, we should want them to stay in prison even if we can’t spend more than total GDP on it.
I should have included the opportunity costs of prisons and society at the beginning of the proof.
I [think it is] a huge mistake that reformists focus on abolishing private prisons, rather than using them.
Yeah, me too. I’ve told people that “I have an idea for a private prison system” and they think it’s a bad idea before they’ve heard any details. I think the government has probably done a better job than the private sector with prisons, so it’s a bit of hard sell.
With privatisation you get what you pay for, and at the moment we pay for volume.
Correct! The performance of the private sector depends on what the system maximizes. The prison’s current profit-maximizing behaviour is to minimize the prison’s cost per inmate and make sure that inmates are “return customers”.
might it be better to define it as the minimum amount we would have to be paid in order to release someone
No, how long someone stays in prison is in the domain of the laws, rather than the prison system. The question is “Would this prison system prevent an ideal set of laws from being implemented?” I can’t see any reason why they shouldn’t work together. Someone who has caused great harm, and is likely to cause more great harm, should not be allowed out. But that’s for the judge to decide.
Thanks very much for writing this! I have always thought this was a great idea, and a huge mistake that reformists focus on abolishing private prisons, rather than using them. With privatisation you get what you pay for, and at the moment we pay for volume.
Minor note: you define CrimesBob as
However, might it be better to define it as the minimum amount we would have to be paid in order to release someone? If someone is expected to cause spectacularly large amounts of disutility, we should want them to stay in prison even if we can’t spend more than total GDP on it.
You still can!
Thanks, Larks.
Yeah, me too. I’ve told people that “I have an idea for a private prison system” and they think it’s a bad idea before they’ve heard any details. I think the government has probably done a better job than the private sector with prisons, so it’s a bit of hard sell.
Correct! The performance of the private sector depends on what the system maximizes. The prison’s current profit-maximizing behaviour is to minimize the prison’s cost per inmate and make sure that inmates are “return customers”.
No, how long someone stays in prison is in the domain of the laws, rather than the prison system. The question is “Would this prison system prevent an ideal set of laws from being implemented?” I can’t see any reason why they shouldn’t work together. Someone who has caused great harm, and is likely to cause more great harm, should not be allowed out. But that’s for the judge to decide.
I would, but I’m working on another post.