Post

Drystar wrote:

Roavin

Section 2 of the proposal defines a private prison as "a prison that is entirely owned and operated or primarily owned and operated by a nongovernmental corporation, a private individual, or any other private actor or actors."
I intentionally used the word "and." If a private company owns the prison while the government operates it, then the terms of the proposal have not been violated. The private company isn't an owner-operator. It's only an owner.
Conversely, a government could own a prison while leasing out certain operations in the prison to private companies. For example, a government could contract with a food services company to run the prison's cafeteria.
What my proposal does is ensure that the government always has a direct hand in the incarceration of its citizens, either as the owner or as the operator of the facilities where its citizens are being held against their wills. The government is ultimately responsible for ordering criminals to prison, and it should have a primary role in carrying out the sentences that it has imposed (if only to ensure the humane treatment of inmates).

So I guess this means yes a government could lease private property and use it and not be in violation. So I’m okay with this one.