What could also make sense is paying the prison a lump sum for the convict instead of a per diem. This changes the incentive structure from keeping people locked up as long as possible to rehabilitating and releasing them as fast as possible.

Just skip the rehab step entirely and just release them - it's cheaper for the prison and the increased chance of re-offending means they'll get another lump sum next go around too!

That's not up to the prison. The only way for a convict to leave prison early is to convince the State that they are worth paroling.

Therefore, the prison would be incentivized to work with the prisoners to encourage good behavior and to show the parole board that a prisoner is worth paroling.

> This changes the incentive structure from keeping people locked up as long as possible to rehabilitating and releasing them as fast as possible.

So long as private prisons have a say in when a prisoner is released there is conflict of interest. If a private prison gets paid $100k for a prisoner, they are going to ensure they are released at the very soonest opportunity instead of detaining them as long as possible. If they get paid per diem, they will keep them as long as possible.

> So long as private prisons have a say in when a prisoner is released there is conflict of interest.

I agree. This would work best if the prison had no influence on the parole board's decision. That way, the only way to get people out of prison faster is to actually rehabilitate them and encourage good behavior.

I don't see where the incentive to rehabilitate is? They're just incentivized to release them ASAP so they spend as little as possible.

Aren't parole boards and the justice system in general involved in the process of releasing people from prison? Its the State that ultimately decides when a prisoner is allowed out.

> They're just incentivized to release them ASAP

And the only way to do that is to show the parole board that a person is worth paroling, e.g. by rehabilitating them.

> releasing them as fast as possible

Why do you want incentivise a private company to release someone who is so dangerous they have to be removed from society as fast as possible?

Your proposal emphasizes rapid release, not rehabilitation.

An inmate can have his prison sentence extended through loss of good time. All while in a private prison.

Because profits are maximized by the current practices.

Not if you change the way that prisons make money, with is what your parent is talking about...

The issue isn't that you can structure incentives to make private prisons prioritize rehabilitation. The issue is that private prisons create a risk of regulatory capture. What creates the largest ROI for the private prison under your suggestions? Sinking loads of money into rehabilitation programmes losing money until decades later where they start to see their trailing commission, or ploughing loads of money into lobbying to change the rules to provide a high per diem and no rehabilitation goals?