Sending Kids to jail for profit

[catzmeow]

Which specific characteristic or belief of yours was attacked in order to invalidate your argument?

Your words were an attack on my person.

 

[Agnapostate]

Your words were an attack on my person.

What specific characteristic or belief of yours was attacked? Or have you mistakenly understood "argumentum ad hominem" to be a synonym of "personal attack"? I suspect so.

 

[catzmeow]

Indeed. What "ad hominem" argument was made?

You should have read further in Wikipedia. Perhaps if you'd stayed in school longer, you'd have had the opportunity to take logic classes.

Ad hominem argument consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

I highlighted the section in your post that focused on ME rather than on my arguments.

It's your standard MO when you are outmatched.

 

[catzmeow]

It is more profitable to have legal policies that favor incarceration and long prison sentences.

You aren't any smarter than Skydancer. But I do prefer your new avatar and name.

Please provide proof of this claim. Privatization occurs because states are suffering from massive shortfalls in budgets, and hiring private contractors is a cost-saving measure.

 

[Agnapostate]

You should have read further in Wikipedia. Perhaps if you'd stayed in school longer, you'd have had the opportunity to take logic classes.

As a philosophy major, logic classes were a component of my courseload in my first semester in college, since I'm specializing in ethics. Merely criticizing your lack of knowledge is not equivalent to a specific attack on a personal characteristic or belief of yours. For instance, claiming that a person can't offer valid commentary on youth policy because of his or her age would be an ad hominem argument. Pointing out that a person has switched back and forth about five times on a given position is not.

I highlighted the section in your post that focused on ME rather than on my arguments.

It's your standard MO when you are outmatched.

"Outmatched"? By you? An amusing claim, but inaccurate nonetheless.

 

[catzmeow]

Merely criticizing your lack of knowledge is not equivalent to a specific attack on a personal characteristic or belief of yours. For instance, claiming that a person can't offer valid commentary on youth policy because of his or her age would be an ad hominem argument. Pointing out that a person has switched back and forth about five times on a given position is not.

Actually, you're mistaken. The phrase "someone such as yourself who knows nothing" is entirely ad hominem.

To go further with that thought, you threw that out there, randomly, purely to avoid discussing the topic, as a way of discrediting me and my arguments ON THE TOPIC. That is the epitomy of ad hominem. Here is a further discussion that may be helpful to you:

[edit] In logic
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that an argument is wrong and/or the source is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the source or those sources cited by it rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the source's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting a source in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy (though it is not usually regarded as acceptable). It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the source offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount its arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.[2]

Example:

"You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."
This argument would generally be accepted as reasonable, as regards personal evidence, on the premise that criminals are likely to lie to protect each other. On the other hand, it is a valid example of ad hominem if the source making the claim is doing so on the basis of evidence independent of its own credibility.

In general, ad hominem criticism of evidence cannot prove the negative of the proposition being claimed:

Example:

"Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this can't be true, because Paula wasn't even watching the game."
Assuming the premise is correct, Paula's evidence is valueless, but the umpire may nonetheless have made the right call.

You've tried to distill ad hominem down to simply attacking a characteristic or belief, when in fact, ad hominem is an irrelevant attempt to discredit a person offering an argument in lieu of actually discussing the argument. That's PRECISELY what you did here. Your implication is that I would need to understand political theory in order to discuss privatization of juvenile facilities. This is inaccurate, and it constitutes an ad hominem. This is also a misstatement of what I know, but that's irrelevant.

I know you'd like to claim otherwise, just like you wish you had an argument here, but you abandoned any pretense of that a while ago.

Did you want to go back to talking about privatization of juvenile sentencing alternatives, or have you eaten enough crow on that topic?

 

[Agnapostate]

Actually, you're mistaken. The phrase "someone such as yourself who knows nothing" is entirely ad hominem.

I know you'd like to claim otherwise, just like you wish you had an argument here, but you abandoned any pretense of that a while ago.

Did you want to go back to talking about privatization of juvenile sentencing alternatives, or have you eaten enough crow on that topic?

Tell me, in your deluded little fantasies, do you honestly imagine that you're capable of besting me? I've slapped your idiocy down every time you've been ignorant enough to drag it out from under its rock.

The fact that you are incapable of understanding argument logic is unsurprising to me, as a result.

 

[Truthmatters]

Video: Cop Punches Woman In Face Four Times During Arrest For Riding A Bike

 

[catzmeow]

Tell me, in your deluded little fantasies, do you honestly imagine that you're capable of besting me? I've slapped your idiocy down every time you've been ignorant enough to drag it out from under its rock.

The fact that you are incapable of understanding argument logic is unsurprising to me, as a result.

I've addressed your irrelevant interjection of WWASPs into the discussion of privatizing juvenile detention, placement and correctional facilities, and shared that I have personal experience on-site with one of the WWASPs, which was not a contractor with ANY state juvenile justice entity. I've asked you to substantiate your claim that state juvenile justice agencies routinely sentence youths to the WWASPs, and you've refused to do so, claiming only that you're superior to me in argumentation.

If that's true, please feel free to go back to the topic and kick my ass with evidence. I'd love to see it.

In lieu of relevant evidence to corroborate your points, I pronounce you solidly pwned.

 

[Agnapostate]

I've addressed your irrelevant interjection of WWASPs into the discussion of privatizing juvenile detention, placement and correctional facilities, and shared that I have personal experience on-site with one of the WWASPs, which was not a contractor with ANY state juvenile justice entity. I've asked you to substantiate your claim that state juvenile justice agencies routinely sentence youths to the WWASPs, and you've refused to do so, claiming only that you're superior to me in argumentation.

If that's true, please feel free to go back to the topic and kick my ass with evidence. I'd love to see it.

In lieu of relevant evidence to corroborate your points, I pronounce you solidly pwned.

Honey, as much as saying "pwned" may help you with your mid-life crisis, you're not fooling any of the whippersnappers. You've already "bragged" about being able to code HTML.

Now, I've already said that I shall look for a more "nonpartisan" source, since you apparently don't trust "biased" sources.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Video: Cop Punches Woman In Face Four Times During Arrest For Riding A Bike

Poliice brutality, nothing new, unfortunately.

 

[catzmeow]

Let's review the post in question again, IN DETAIL

Just depicting opposition to privatization as an unsupported conspiracy theory of some variety is stupid. Unsurprising, but regardless...

Please provide evidence that I depicted opposition to privatization as an unsupported conspiracy theory? The OP made a sweeping generalization that privatization is bad. I countered that IN THIS CASE, it clearly was, but that I'm familiar with other private contractors who actually provide better services to juvenile offenders for less money. Thus, you characterized my argument inaccurately. More accurate would be to say that sweeping opposition to privatization simply because it is private is in essence, an insufficient sample from which to derive a reasonable hypotheses.

Privatization would naturally lend itself to a greater degree of coercive control due to managerial discretion (such as imprisonment of youth when no illegal acts have been committed,

That isn't the topic of discussion here. Juvenile justice contractors come into play ONLY when an illegal act has been committed. In this instance, the judges themselves acted criminally, and should be charged. But, the juveniles themselves had committed delinquent acts. The circumstances of those acts, however, did not warrant the sentences. This could be remedied by regular auditing of juvenile justice sentencing practices by judges.

but simply because private facilities have been authorized to act in loco parentis), which has traditionally been the result of forcibly shipping youth to privately owned behavior modification facilities, for instance.

This is not the case with the juvenile justice contractors. For youth in the custody of the state for delinquent acts, the state NEVER relinquishes custody to the contractor the way that parents privately placing their children in a troubled youth facility do. The state itself serves, at all times, as parent/guardian.

If you had any familiarity with the BMF industry, you'd know there's a reason why Casa By the Sea was shut down and why Tranquility Bay is on its way out.

The specific locations you mention AREN'T EVEN LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES. THus, they are completely irrelevant to this discussion because they never, EVER served as juvenile justice contractors.

Grow up and learn what you're talking about. Throwing around latin phrases and abbreviations may make you feel smart, but for anyone who has the least exposure to this topic, you are exposing yourself as a fraud.

If you want to bring the WWASPs into this dicussion, you need to prove that they operated as JUVENILE JUSTICE CONTRACTORS, and not as exclusive resorts for troubled teens from wealthy families. And, the reason you have not done so is because you CAN'T. I've never mentioned source bias in this thread, but ANY source on your part would be lovely.

WHat the source specifically needs to say, however, to make it relevant to this discussion, is that these WWASP schools served as privatized juvenile justice sentencing alternatives.

And we both know they didn't.

And, that you've been solidly owned.

So now, little troll, go crawl back under your rock with your cabbage patch kids.

 

[catzmeow]

Video: Cop Punches Woman In Face Four Times During Arrest For Riding A Bike

Poliice brutality, nothing new, unfortunately.

Let me help you understand:

This thread is NOT about police brutality. It's about privatization of juvenile justice fracilities. If you'd like to grind your particular axe against the police, I'd suggest you start a new thread.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The prison-industrial complex brought to you by privatization:


"Communication companies like AT&T, Sprint, and MCI are getting into the act as well, gouging prisoners with exorbitant phone calling rates, often six times the normal long distance charge. Smaller firms like Correctional Communications Corp., dedicated solely to the prison phone business, provide computerized prison phone systems fully equipped for systematic surveillance. They win government contracts by offering to "kick back" some of the profits to the government agency awarding the contract. These companies are reaping huge profits at the expense of prisoners and their families; prisoners are often effectively cut off from communication due to the excessive cost of phone calls.

One of the fastest growing sectors of the prison/industrial complex is private corrections companies. Investment firm Smith Barney is a part owner of a prison in Florida. American Express and General Electric have invested in private prison construction in Oklahoma and Tennessee. Correctional Corporation Of America, one of the largest private prison owners, already operates internationally, with 48 facilities in 11 states, Puerto Rico, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Under contract by government to run jails and prisons, and paid a fixed sum per prisoner, the profit motive mandates that these firms operate as cheaply and efficiently as possible. This means lower wages for staff, no unions, and fewer services for prisoners. Private contracts also mean less public scrutiny. Prison owners are raking in billions by cutting corners which harm prisoners. Substandard diets, extreme overcrowding, and abuses by poorly trained personnel have all been documented and can be expected in these institutions which are unabashedly about making money.

Prisons are also a leading rural growth industry. With traditional agriculture being pushed aside by agribusiness, many rural American communities are facing hard times. Economically depressed areas are falling over each other to secure a prison facility of their own. Prisons are seen as a source of jobs -- in construction, local vendors and prison staff â€" as well as a source of tax revenues. An average prison has a staff of several hundred employees and an annual payroll of several million dollars.

Like any industry, the prison economy needs raw materials. In this case the raw materials are prisoners. The prison/industrial complex can grow only if more and more people are incarcerated even if crime rates drop. "Three Strikes" and Mandatory Minimums (harsh, fixed sentences without parole) are two examples of the legal superstructure quickly being put in place to guarantee that the prison population will grow and grow and grow.

For private business, prison labor is like a pot of gold. No strikes. No union organizing. No unemployment insurance or workers' compensation to pay. No language problem, as in a foreign country. New leviathan prisons are being built with thousands of eerie acres of factories inside the walls. Prisoners do data entry for Chevron, make telephone reservations for TWA, raise hogs, shovel manure, make circuit boards, limousines, waterbeds, and lingerie for Victoria's Secret. All at a fraction of the cost of "free labor."

Prisoners can be forced to work for pennies because they have no rights. Even the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which abolished slavery, excludes prisoners from its protections.

And, more and more, prisons are charging inmates for basic necessities from medical care, to toilet paper, to use of the law library. Many states are now charging "room and board." Berks County prison in Pennsylvania is charging inmates $10 per day to be there. California has similar legislation pending. So, while government cannot (yet) actually require inmates to work at private industry jobs for less than minimum wage, they are forced to by necessity.

Some prison enterprises are state run. Inmates working at UNICOR (the federal prison industry corporation) make recycled furniture and work 40 hours a week for about $40 per month. The Oregon Prison Industries produces a line of "Prison Blues" blue jeans. An ad in their catalogue shows a handsome prison inmate saying, "I say we should make bell-bottoms. They say I've been in here too long."

Bizarre, but true..."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EVA110A.html



More at these links:
http://www.cas.sc.edu/socy/faculty/deflem/zprof.pdf
http://core.ecu.edu/soci/juskaa/SOCI2110/Prison_Industrial_Complex.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Prison-industrial_complex

 

[Tech_Esq]

I don't care how many prisons you've been in. What you do in your work or personal life is none of my business and what I do in mine is none of yours.

On what basis, then, are you definitively declaring that these private facilities aren't any better?

On what basis does anyone state an opinion? On facts, and reason. The facts are that we are second only to China in the number of people we incarcerate.

It is more profitable to have legal policies that favor incarceration and long prison sentences.

It's not important to me how many people are incarcerated, it's only important if they should be incarcerated. I can agree with the people that say we should not put drug users in jail. Especially not for long terms. But if you are there otherwise, I have no problem with that.

 

[Tech_Esq]

It's a little thin on facts, but I don't see how Tinker applies. If it was a truly online, not school related site, then Tinker shouldn't apply. If it was a school sponsored site, then Tinker probably would apply. But remember if Tinker doesn't apply the school would not have the right to restrict speech at all. The fact the the courts are doing it and not the schools is worse, it's just a plain and simple violation of first amendment rights.

It may apply, considering that Morse v. Frederick was judged to be "on school grounds." I'm not relying on their accurate interpretation of reality, you see. I'm relying on them stretching jurisdictive claims to an absurd level.

Morse would be distinguished because it was a "school sponsored" function that was not on school grounds. That's why I cited the possible issue above. If it was a "school sponsored or supported" online site, then Morse would apply. Otherwise, not.

 

[garyd]

Okay the4 fact of the matter is that if you are doing serious time for simple possession nice plea bargain. Congratulate your mlawyer for keeping you from doing a lot more time on all those other counts that weere dropped so you could do ten years for possession...

 

[Tech_Esq]

Okay the4 fact of the matter is that if you are doing serious time for simple possession nice plea bargain. Congratulate your mlawyer for keeping you from doing a lot more time on all those other counts that weere dropped so you could do ten years for possession...

Ten years for possession? What got dropped? Manslaughter?

 

[catzmeow]

It's not important to me how many people are incarcerated, it's only important if they should be incarcerated. I can agree with the people that say we should not put drug users in jail. Especially not for long terms. But if you are there otherwise, I have no problem with that.

I totally agree. The vast majority of people who are incarcerated should be there. And, frankly, our biggest problem in this country is not that we incarcerate too many people, but that we don't incarcerate serious offenders for LONG ENOUGH.

 

[doeton]

I totally agree. The vast majority of people who are incarcerated should be there. And, frankly, our biggest problem in this country is not that we incarcerate too many people, but that we don't incarcerate serious offenders for LONG ENOUGH.

may be that's what the prison industrial complex wants...

i mean if you release the dangerous ones the public will support more prisons...even though it 's really only needed for the dangerous ones...not the druggies...

i wonder if all this money involved in private prisons could affect sentencing guidelines...