@ISIDEWITHQuestionsCriminal Issues6yrs ago

Should the government hire private companies to run prisons?

Private prisons are incarceration centers that are run by a for-profit company instead of a government agency. The companies that operate private prisons are paid a per-diem or monthly rate for each prisoner they keep in their facilities. Japan opened its first private prison in 2005. Opponents of private prisons argue that incarceration is a social responsibility and that entrusting it to for-profit companies is inhumane. Proponents argue that prisons run by private companies are consistently more cost effective than those run by government agencies.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 3.1k Japan voters.

34%
Yes
66%
No
27%
Yes
64%
No
5%
Yes, but they should be strictly regulated to prevent mismanagement and corruption
3%
No, private prisons will sacrifice quality of care and rehabilitation services for profit
1%
Yes, but eliminate contractual occupancy quotas

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 3.1k Japan voters.

Chart
Line chart with 7 lines.
The chart has 1 X axis displaying values. Range: to .
The chart has 2 Y axes displaying values and values.
End of interactive chart.

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 3.1k Japan voters.

Chart
Line chart with 8 lines.
The chart has 1 X axis displaying values. Range: to .
The chart has 2 Y axes displaying values and values.
End of interactive chart.

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Japan voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @97Q57CXfrom Georgia  answered…2yrs2Y

No, never allow a profit-motive to be introduced into what is supposed to be a containment and rehabilitation facility. Look up America filling up their prisons on false drug charges as an example of what NOT TO DO.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

Hegseth Out, DeSantis In? Trump Rethinks Defense Pick

President-elect Donald Trump is considering Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as a possible replacement for Pete Hegseth, his pick to run the Pentagon, according to people familiar with the discussions, amid Republican senators’ concerns over mounting allegations about the former Fox News host’s personal life.Picking DeSantis, a 2024 GOP primary rival for the presidency, would amount to a stunning turn for Trump. But he would also find in the governor a well-known conservative with a service record who shares Trump’s—and Hegseth’s—view on culling what they see as “woke” policies in the military.Trump allies increasingly think Hegseth might not survive further scrutiny, according to people close to the president-elect’s team, which considers the next 48 hours to be crucial to his fate.DeSantis, who served as a Navy lawyer in Iraq and the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, was on an earlier list of potential defense-secretary candidates that transition officials presented to the president. Trump ultimately went with Hegseth. But as Hegseth’s nomination has faltered, that list has been revived and DeSantis is again among the choices Trump is considering, the people said.The discussions are in their early stages, one of the people said, adding that Trump has floated DeSantis’s name in casual conversations with guests at Mar-a-Lago, his private Florida club.Trump could decide not to choose DeSantis and select another replacement, if Hegseth’s nomination falls apart, the people said. Another potential defense-secretary candidate who has been discussed by Trump allies, according to people familiar with the matter, is Elbridge Colby, a former Pentagon official and ally of Vice President-elect JD Vance. Trump is also considering Sen. Joni Ernst (R., Iowa) for the job, some of the people said.DeSantis was once seen as an acolyte of Trump but his decision to challenge the former president in the 2024 GOP primary began a conflict between them, with Trump casting DeSantis as disloyal. Trump easily prevailed in the primary and friends of the two have worked to repair the relationship.

▲  279 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

Border Bombshell: 8 Million New Arrivals Under Biden

The immigration surge of the past few years has been the largest in U.S. history, surpassing the great immigration boom of the late 1800s and early 1900s, according to a New York Times analysis of government data.Annual net migration — the number of people coming to the country minus the number leaving — averaged 2.4 million people from 2021 to 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Total net migration during the Biden administration is likely to exceed eight million people.That’s a faster pace of arrivals than during any other period on record, including the peak years of Ellis Island traffic, when millions of Europeans came to the United States. Even after taking into account today’s larger U.S. population, the recent surge is the most rapid since at least 1850.The numbers in the Times analysis include both legal and illegal immigration. About 60 percent of immigrants who have entered the country since 2021 have done so without legal authorization, according to a Goldman Sachs report based on government data.The combined increases of legal and illegal immigration have caused the share of the U.S. population born in another country to reach a new high, 15.2 percent in 2023, up from 13.6 percent in 2020. The previous high was 14.8 percent, in 1890.Several factors caused the surge, starting with President Biden’s welcoming immigration policy during his first three years in office. Offended by Donald J. Trump’s harsh policies — including the separation of families at the border — Mr. Biden and other Democrats promised a different approach. “We’re a nation that says, ‘If you want to flee, and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come,’” Mr. Biden said during his 2020 presidential campaign.After taking office, his administration loosened the rules on asylum and other immigration policies, making it easier for people to enter the United States. Some have received temporary legal status while their cases wend through backlogged immigration courts. Others have remained without legal permission.

▲  1512 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3mos3MO

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  2019 replies5 agree1 disagree6