There should be no place for private prisons

The Review-Journal has long shown an anti-government bias and Monday’s editorial, “Behind bars,” is another example. There are certain things that the private sector should not do, things that should be the exclusive responsibility of the government. Depriving citizens of their freedom — or running prisons — is one of them.

The private sector has profit as the motivation for everything it does. Without that, there is no reason to have a business. How does a profit-making entity make money off of prisons? It does so by charging its customers more than what it costs the company to do business. To maximize profit, the company is not going to hire any more guards that it absolutely needs, will not offer any programs that are not provided for in its contract, or do anything else it is not bound by contract to do.

Often, private companies are paid by the prisoner. The more prisoners, the more money they make. The corporations have a strong incentive to pressure courts to provide more prisoners. This is a recipe for corruption. In your editorial, you dismissed this possibility. In doing so you willfully ignored cases such as in Pennsylvania where two judges pleaded guilty to taking $2.6 million in kickbacks from two private youth detention centers. These judges sent 5,000 prisoners there.

Instead, you choose to blame high incarceration rates on police officers and prison guard groups, citing the fact they are spending money to oppose the legalization of marijuana in California. You do not even consider that their opposition could be based on other motives. Perhaps they have seen many cases in which criminal perpetrators were high on marijuana or maybe they fear it is a gateway drug. There could be other reasons, as well, that would make more sense than what you propose.

Your editorial was not well thought out. It was, once again, a piece that showed the Review-Journal’s often irrational bias against government.

Anders Sorensen

Las Vegas

One for all

What many writers forget when addressing the virtues of socialism in countries such as Denmark and comparing them to the United States of America is that this country carries a defense budget many, many times over these small nations (Sunday commentary, “The myth of Nordic socialism”). In fact, if it wasn’t for the blood and treasure of the United States, many of those nations would be speaking German today.

As a result, these small nations feel they don’t need to dedicate their country’s budget to defense, allowing them to allocate money to social welfare programs, instead. No need to be concerned about the rest of the world. The United States will always be there.

Ron Moers

Hendertson

Papers, please

It is ridiculous to believe that people living in this country do not have the needed documentation to prove their citizenship and that asking for this proof to vote will disenfranchise the poor, minority groups and the elderly.

This may have been the case 100 years ago but it is certainly not true in this day and age.

I am 66 years old, live on a fixed income and have had a copy of my birth certificate since I was born. I also have a valid U.S. passport. My wife, who emigrated from Indonesia and is also 66 years old, has a copy of her Indonesian birth certificate, her naturalization document and a valid U.S. passport. She is a minority and was very poor when she came to this county.

My wife cherishes her proof of naturalization — as does every other immigrant who becomes a citizen of the United States — and is more than happy to provide it for voter registration. We are not disenfranchised. The only groups in this country who are disenfranchised are legal immigrants who never wanted to become U.S. citizens or undocumented residents.

So who is the federal government kidding? It is 2016, not the 1800s. Evidently, the current administration wants non-citizens to vote and will make up any lie to see that this happens.

Richard J. Palyo

Las Vegas