Private prisons can pay

Often times my fellow journalists draw the wrong conclusions from their investigations, and a report on pay-to-stay jails by the Los Angeles Times is the latest example.

The story leads with how a person convicted of sexual assault was able to pay for an upgrade to their jail cell. While the judge in that case was wrong to allow such a criminal to use the pay-tostay system, it is actually an excellent example of criminal justice reform and the potential future for private prisons.

That is, if you think the goal of incarceration should be to deter future bad behavior, not encourage it.

In California, if you are sentenced to county jail time, and the judge agrees, you have the option to shop around for where you will serve your sentence. For somewhere between $50 and $250 a night, you can choose a jail that may allow you to bring in your own linens, your private computer and guarantee that you don’t have to hang out with hardened criminals.

Some criminals are even allowed to serve their time in these nice jails only on the weekends and spend weekdays working. One music producer took two years to serve 135 days.

Wait a minute, you might say, that’s not fair. Rich people should have to serve time just like poor people. But that’s the wrong conclusion. It goes back to the old criminal justice cliche about

the difference between people we’re mad at and people we are afraid of.

We need to keep the two separated and treat them differently.

Most county jails are overcrowded, and as a result, criminals are released early —even dangerous criminals, as long as they behave behind bars. These cells should be reserved for people who are violent and should segregated from society.

There are other criminals, though, who commit nonviolent crimes, like embezzlement or fraud. And there are young people caught with small amounts of drugs.

They need to pay a price for their crimes, but locking them up with hardened criminals for weeks or months means they can’t work and support their families. They are also spending their days with professional criminals, who often abuse them and turn them into hardened criminals.

Allowing someone to pay for better conditions, or to continue working as long as they spend the night in jail, keeps these nonviolent offenders in the workforce and out of danger. They still feel the weight of their crime every time they check into a jail cell, but they also remain productive members of society.

I’d never ask taxpayers to pay for nicer jails, but why not let people pay for better conditions if they can? And if the private prison industry wants to profit from getting a per diem for housing county prisoners and then make a little more by offering better conditions for a price, why not?

After all, this is a country that denies quality health care to the working poor because they can’t afford it. Why is it not OK then to allow someone to pay for better treatment in jail or prison?

Too many Americans think every criminal needs to be personally broken for breaking the law. All that does is ruin lives and waste resources.

While violent criminals should be excluded, pay-to-stay jails could solve a lot of what’s wrong with our criminal justice system, and offer a way for private jails to make money by offering quality services rather than cutrate facilities.

Remember, the criminal justice system is supposed to discourage crime, rehabilitate offenders and protect the public. It’s not about retribution.