Home » Opinion » Editorials
March 19. 2013 6:49PM
Public officials are still waiting for the results of a state-commissioned report on the pros and cons of prison privatization. Well, some state officials are. Not the Solons of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. There, a bill to ban the state's use of private prisons is up for a vote today.
Normally legislators would wait to receive the official state study before acting on an issue. Even if their minds are made up already, if a study has been commissioned it at least looks good to wait until the report is in. But the leadership in your House of Representatives thought it was wise to vote on House Bill 443 before all the facts were in.
So today representatives vote on the bill, which would make it illegal for the Department of Corrections to house New Hampshire inmates in any private prison facility.
The bill actually strikes the word "private" from state law and replaces it with the word "government." What could possibly be the motivation behind such stupendous nincompoopery?
The first and most obvious motivation is to signal to the state employees unions: "We're your loyal stooges! Just keep those campaign contributions coming!"
The other, even worse, motivation is simple ideological foolishness. There are some legislators who abhor the profit motive. To them it is distasteful at best, evil at worst. Private prisons must be awful places because the people who run them are in it to make money. Case closed.
Such a childish notion is dashed with ease: The bill would prohibit the transfer of a New Hampshire prisoner to one of the privately run prisons in 37 U.S. states, but not to government-run prisons in Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, or North Korea. One not even use such extreme examples. Would the liberals supporting this bill like to see New Hampshire inmates sent to state-run prisons in the notoriously tough-on-crime states of Alabama, Mississippi, Arizona, or Texas?
The notion that government-run prisons are inherently superior, inherently more humane, inherently more civil than privately run prisons is nonsense. The bill deserves a humiliating defeat.
Ignorance in action: The foolish private prison ban
Normally legislators would wait to receive the official state study before acting on an issue. Even if their minds are made up already, if a study has been commissioned it at least looks good to wait until the report is in. But the leadership in your House of Representatives thought it was wise to vote on House Bill 443 before all the facts were in.
So today representatives vote on the bill, which would make it illegal for the Department of Corrections to house New Hampshire inmates in any private prison facility.
The bill actually strikes the word "private" from state law and replaces it with the word "government." What could possibly be the motivation behind such stupendous nincompoopery?
The first and most obvious motivation is to signal to the state employees unions: "We're your loyal stooges! Just keep those campaign contributions coming!"
The other, even worse, motivation is simple ideological foolishness. There are some legislators who abhor the profit motive. To them it is distasteful at best, evil at worst. Private prisons must be awful places because the people who run them are in it to make money. Case closed.
Such a childish notion is dashed with ease: The bill would prohibit the transfer of a New Hampshire prisoner to one of the privately run prisons in 37 U.S. states, but not to government-run prisons in Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, or North Korea. One not even use such extreme examples. Would the liberals supporting this bill like to see New Hampshire inmates sent to state-run prisons in the notoriously tough-on-crime states of Alabama, Mississippi, Arizona, or Texas?
The notion that government-run prisons are inherently superior, inherently more humane, inherently more civil than privately run prisons is nonsense. The bill deserves a humiliating defeat.
- Charles Arlinghaus: Don't believe hype on Medicaid expansion - 0
- Thomas Sowell: Common sense vs. the military's pursuit of political correctness - 0
- Diana Lacey: $50 million in personnel cuts would hurt NH - 26
- Jonah Goldberg: Freedom: the unfolding revolution - 4
- Deroy Murdock: Corruption aside, the IRS has too much Obamacare authority - 8
- Thomas Sowell: There's lots of bad economic thinking in the immigration debate - 0
- Roger Simon: The slacker who came in from the cold - 3
- Charles Krauthammer: Pushing the envelope, NSA-style - 4
- George Will: Slipping the Constitution's leash - 0
Sen. Sylvia Larsen: Expanding Medicaid is all benefit, no cost for New Hampshire
READER COMMENTS: 13- House, Senate at standoff over vaccines, voter registration bill - 0
- Rochester parents called to court to answer for truant children - 0
- Exeter High teachers' resignations announced at meeting - 0
- Rochester woman under arrest in underage party - 0
- LeBron, Heat edge Spurs in OT, force Game 7 - 0
- Santos drives in three as Curve beat Fisher Cats in 10 - 0
- Large billboards grabbing attention on Route 101 in Epping - 2
- Pearl Street lot proposal involves student housing in Manchester - 3
- Manchester VFW posts fights to survive without poker cash - 2
UPDATE: Police say man found dead outside Wall Street Towers jumped
READER COMMENTS: 3
Sorry, no question available



