- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 10,443
- Reaction score
- 4,479
- Location
- Western NY and Geneva, CH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The relevant difference between CCA and a law enforcement agency is that, rather than serve the public good, CCA’s mandate is simply to produce profit for its shareholders – by incarcerating people. As a result of the Vista Grande High School raid, three students were arrested and may well end up in a CCA-run facility. CCA may then use a portion of the taxpayer money paid to incarcerate the former students to lobby for stricter sentencing laws, to fight legalization measures, or even to support legislation mandating greater funds for high school anti-drug enforcement.
This pisses me off beyond belief. I'm sure most people would think libertarians would support this, but I see it being directly against everything I believe. I believe the government has very few roles, but the biggest of them is the justice system. Outsourcing our justice system in any form is absolutely unacceptable. Prisons, LEO's, all of it need to be government run and owned.[/FONT]http://www.theidealistrevolution.com/private-prison-company/
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Whether a sweep like this is conducted by a private prison company or law enforcement officers makes no difference to me whatsoever -- I find such sweeps despicable in either case, and in either case the individuals conducting the sweep have a financial incentive to arrest as many people as the law allows.
Don't take the title too literally, because obviously we want whoever is conducting such a raid to have a clean criminal record, to be honest in their practices, and to be professional in their conduct. Additionally, I'm betting most of us can agree the military shouldn't be involved in such raids. I'm just wondering what's the difference between having a private firm with a financial incentive and a public institution with a financial incentive conduct these raids.[/FONT]
One of them is a public servant and the other is an employee, it's a completely different mentality and duty. We as a society hold public servants, or at least should, to a higher standard.If you could, please, I'd like you to set aside your feelings about outsourcing the functions of the justice system for just a moment. My question is, what's the difference between having a private contractor do the sweep and having law enforcement do the sweep when both of them have a significant financial incentive to arrest as many people as possible?
One of them is a public servant and the other is an employee, it's a completely different mentality and duty. We as a society hold public servants, or at least should, to a higher standard.
As a public servant you are held accountable to the people, as a contractor you are only accountable to your paycheck. This is no different than comparing an enlisted soldier to a contractor. The former has taken an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and has shown on at least some level that he is willing to put the good of the nation above the needs of his own. The latter has done nothing of the sort.So even if they're doing the same job for the same pay with the same authority and responsibility and financial incentive, they're different because ... of a feeling?
As a public servant you are held accountable to the people, as a contractor you are only accountable to your paycheck. This is no different than comparing an enlisted soldier to a contractor. The former has taken an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and has shown on at least some level that he is willing to put the good of the nation above the needs of his own. The latter has done nothing of the sort.
I would argue that a public servant who has not been elected or appointed is just as accountable to the people as a private contractor -- both are employed, both are subject to public relations nightmares, and both are subject to the law.
The only consistent difference I am seeing by your own words is how we feel about them.
Is that true?
Police officers take an oath, and in doing so are granted special powers by the state. Some random civilian in a for-profit contracting agency does not, and should not have the power to overrule my constitutional rights. Only law enforcement officers can do this, and in only very specific situations.
You have said that you don't care either way, well that rather troubles me. If justice, upholding of the constitution, and protecting the citizens isn't the job of the government, what the f*** is their job? Why does government even exist?
So, if you make their authority and responsibility equal to that of law enforcement officers, then all you have left is an oath and perception.
I was pretty clear about why I don't care -- because I would've been bothered by the raid no matter who did it. In other words, bad behavior is bad no matter who we're talking about.
I would argue that a public servant who has not been elected or appointed is just as accountable to the people as a private contractor -- both are employed, both are subject to public relations nightmares, and both are subject to the law.
The only consistent difference I am seeing by your own words is how we feel about them.
Is that true?
[/FONT]http://www.theidealistrevolution.com/private-prison-company/
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Whether a sweep like this is conducted by a private prison company or law enforcement officers makes no difference to me whatsoever -- I find such sweeps despicable in either case, and in either case the individuals conducting the sweep have a financial incentive to arrest as many people as the law allows.
Don't take the title too literally, because obviously we want whoever is conducting such a raid to have a clean criminal record, to be honest in their practices, and to be professional in their conduct. Additionally, I'm betting most of us can agree the military shouldn't be involved in such raids. I'm just wondering what's the difference between having a private firm with a financial incentive and a public institution with a financial incentive conduct these raids.[/FONT]
Thank you! He seems to have zero grasp of the mentality differences between sworn-in public servants such as soldiers or LEO's, and contractors. Even if it didn't have any difference in quality and mentality on the part of the LEO's, it has to do with public opinion. Would anyone really like being chased down, handcuffed, and imprisoned by civilians?As a former police officer, my duty and loyalty was to the public good. I took an oath to protect and serve and took it very seriously. My duty was not to produce revenue for the department, but to keep the peace and enforce the law... in that order.
Yes, it really is different.
Having said that I don't much like these raids either.
They have a higher level of training, know the law
and have no financial incentive to cross the line.
Thank you! He seems to have zero grasp of the mentality differences between sworn-in public servants such as soldiers or LEO's, and contractors. Even if it didn't have any difference in quality and mentality on the part of the LEO's, it has to do with public opinion. Would anyone really like being chased down, handcuffed, and imprisoned by civilians?
As a former police officer, my duty and loyalty was to the public good. I took an oath to protect and serve and took it very seriously. My duty was not to produce revenue for the department, but to keep the peace and enforce the law... in that order.
Yes, it really is different.
I have an acute grasp. I have reduced everything you said to the simple truth -- that the only difference involves feelings. If you can come up with something concrete, let me know.
Then you've ignored half of what I've said. I've stated how LEO's take oaths and actually work for the government. Do you think most cops become cops because the pay will be good? Or do they do it because they generally want to help and protect people? THAT is the difference.
That's easy enough to remedy.
Sure they do, and it happens every day.
No, I didn't ignore any of that. You're trying to say that who signs the checks and some rote vocalication makes a concrete difference. That still comes down to feelings.
No, it's really not easy enough to remedy. LEOs are held to a high standard. They have inter-department investigative agencies. LEO's have a high degree of investment in their jobs. They're well paid...have retirements to protect...the private sector cannot compete with their level of investment in their jobs.
Since it appears you have a rather low opinion of LEO's, I'm interested in the financial investment you think they would have in this instance. If I had to pick which I thought would be more professional? I'd pick LEOs over private security firms every time.
So you never answered my question: Why don't we just get rid of the government altogether and hand out each of its roles to corporations? The taxpayers could pay them directly. According to you, there would be no difference other than "feelings".
This is called "debate politics", not "answer my politics questions while I whine about your answers without providing any of my own". We've all addressed your topic, and you've provided zero responses other than whining about everything being based on "feelings." I'll ask you a third time:You're essentially trying to ask me the question I'm asking everyone else. The point of this thread was that I was asking the question, and I've yet to be told of any differences not tied to emotions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?