Private Prisons in a New Environment

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott D. Camp
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Rapid Growth ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private Prisons ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Current State ◽  
History Of ◽  
Prison Populations ◽  
Public Versus Private

This chapter focuses on the current state of practice, policy, and research related to privately operated prisons in the United States. I begin with a brief overview of the history of the rapid growth in the private sector in the United States, followed by a discussion of costs of public versus private prisons. While costs are easily quantified, assigning the proper costs to the public and private sectors has presented much controversy in previous studies. The issue of quality of correctional services provided by public versus private prisons is also reviewed, given that there is little agreement on the type of measures that allow for fair comparisons of public and private prisons. The chapter concludes with thoughts on issues facing public and private prisons in an era marked by stability or decline as opposed to rapid growth in prison populations.

Public Funding of Private Religious Schools

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven K. Green
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Religious Education ◽  
Public Funding ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
Us Constitution

The public funding of private religious education has been one of the more contentious issues in the history of American education and in US constitutional law. Unlike the situation in many Western democracies, the United States does not have a tradition of equal funding of public and private schools. This is based in large part on interpretations of the US Constitution and the historical development of public education in the United States. This article discusses the evolution of the “no-funding rule” from the early nineteenth century through the latest interpretations of that rule by the US Supreme Court. It demonstrates that neither the rule nor its application has remained static over time.

scholarly journals The Social Oikos

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-32
Author(s):  
Michael Lee Humphrey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Self ◽  
Ancient World ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Social ◽  
Nuanced Understanding ◽  
Core Points

In one of the foundational articles of persona studies, Marshall and Barbour (2015) look to Hannah Arendt for development of a key concept within the larger persona framework: “Arendt saw the need to construct clear and separate public and private identities. What can be discerned from this understanding of the public and the private is a nuanced sense of the significance of persona: the presentation of the self for public comportment and expression” (2015, p. 3). But as far back as the ancient world from which Arendt draws her insights, the affordance of persona was not evenly distributed. As Gines (2014) argues, the realm of the household, oikos, was a space of subjugation of those who were forced to be “private,” tending to the necessities of life, while others were privileged with life in the public at their expense. To demonstrate the core points of this essay, I use textual analysis of a YouTube family vlog, featuring a Black mother in the United States, whose persona rapidly changed after she and her White husband divorced. By critically examining Arendt’s concepts around public, private, and social, a more nuanced understanding of how personas are formed in unjust cultures can help us theorize persona studies in more egalitarian and robust ways.

Russia and Europe: historical lessons

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir I. Vinokurov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Driving Forces ◽  
The United States ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
Current State ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Will ◽  
Otto Von Bismarck ◽  
The Military

Тhe article deals with the results of the Patriotic War of 1812 and the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945. The analysis of these largest wars in the history of Russian-European relations is carried out, their comparison is made, their nature, character and driving forces are revealed. On the basis of this, it is concluded that both sides have not made the proper conclusions: Europe — in terms of the expediency and consequences of an attack on Russia, thereby violating the will of the iron Chancellor Otto von Bismarck: "Make alliances with anyone, start any wars, but never touch the Russians." Russia — timely opening and preparation for the upcoming tests in relations with Europe. Against the background of more than 200 years of history, the current state of relations between Russia and Europe, which has reached a low level, is considered. Although the leading European states, Germany and France, have not stopped political contacts with Russia, but the content of these contacts has become significantly poorer, the format has narrowed, and the tone has sharpened. In the military sphere, Europe in the Russian direction follows in principle the same course as the United States. Within the framework of NATO, European countries, led by the United States, have taken a number of steps that have restored, so far at a symbolic level, the military confrontation with Russia in eastern Europe. Moscow, for its part, has stepped up its own military activities near its western borders. As a result, Europe has ceased to be the island of security that it remained for the previous quarter of a century. This does not mean, of course, that relations between Russia and European countries are ending. In fact, Russia's practical needs require easing tensions with Europe as its largest trade and economic partner. With this in mind, Moscow has achieved some success in replacing the almost non-existentties with Brussels with meaningful bilateral relations with some EU countries. Despite the fact that the European Union's foreign policy apparatus is unable to form a unified geopolitical, economic and cultural front against Moscow, there is every reason to believe that the Kremlin intends to be guided by this strategy of bilateral relations in the coming years.

Privatization—Chipping Away at Government

2020 ◽  
pp. 106-128
Author(s):  
Donald Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Public Services ◽  
The United States ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Right

This chapter focuses on the right wing's astonishingly successful efforts to privatize public goods and services. Privatization has been one of the highest priorities of the right wing for many years, and the chapter shows how it threatens both labor and democracy. Intentionally blurring the lines between public and private institutions, private companies and market forces undermine the common good. This chapter documents the history of privatization in the United States, from President Reagan's early efforts to Clinton and Gore's belief in private markets. Showing how privatization undermines democratic government, the chapter describes complex contracts that are difficult to understand, poorly negotiated “public–private partnership” deals, and contracts that provide incentives to deny public services. With huge amounts of money at stake, privateers are increasingly weighing in on policy debates—not based on the public interest but rather in pursuit of avenues that increase their revenues, profits, and market share. Privatization not only destroys union jobs but also aims to cripple union political involvement so that the corporate agenda can spread unfettered. Nevertheless, community-based battles against privatization have succeeded in many localities, demonstrating the power of fighting back to defend public services, public jobs, and democratic processes.

A Lack of Language – Waging War or Combatting Crime? The Blurred Rule of International Law in the Face of the Attacks of September 11, 2001

2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (17) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus Binder
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Face ◽  
The United Nations

After the terrorists' attacks of September 11, 2001, a lot of war rhetoric came out of the public and private sphere within the United States of America. On October 7, 2001, however, the rhetoric turned into reality as President George W. Bush countered the terrorist attacks and the threat of future terrorism with military means. While waging that new war U.S. governmental officials constantly make one important point, and that is that the United States are just exercising their right of self-defense. Moreover, on the day after the attacks, the Security Council of the United Nations unanimously reaffirmed the inherent right of self-defense as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations. Does that mean that international law is just that clear?

Santa Anna and His Legacy

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Will Fowler
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mexican War ◽  
Early National Period ◽  
The Public ◽  
Early National ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Alamo ◽  
The U.S

Antonio López de Santa Anna (b. Xalapa, February 21, 1794; d. Mexico City, June 21, 1876) was one of the most notorious military caudillos of 19th-century Mexico. He was involved in just about every major event of the early national period and served as president on six different occasions (1833–1835, 1839, 1841–1843, 1843–1844, 1846–1847, and 1853–1855). U.S. Minister Plenipotentiary Waddy Thompson during the 1840s would come to the conclusion that: “No history of his country for that period can be written without constant mention of his name.”1 For much of the 1820s to 1850s he proved immensely popular; the public celebrated him as “Liberator of Veracruz,” the “Founder of the Republic,” and the “Hero of Tampico” who repulsed a Spanish attempt to reconquer Mexico in 1829. Even though he lost his leg defending Veracruz from a French incursion in 1838, many still regarded him as the only general who would be able to save Mexico from the U.S. intervention of 1846–1848. However, Mexicans, eventually, would remember him more for his defeats than his victories. Having won the battle of the Alamo, he lost the battle of San Jacinto which resulted in Texas becoming independent from Mexico in 1836. Although he recovered from this setback, many subsequently blamed him for Mexico’s traumatic defeat in the U.S.-Mexican War, which ended with Mexico ceding half of its territory to the United States. His corruption paired with the fact that he aligned himself with competing factions at different junctures contributed to the accusation that he was an unprincipled opportunist. Moreover, because he authorized the sale of La Mesilla Valley to the United States (in present-day southern Arizona) in the 1853 Gadsden Purchase, he was labeled a vendepatrias (“fatherland-seller”). The repressive dictatorship he led donning the title of “His Serene Highness” in 1853–1855, also gave way to him being presented thereafter as a bloodthirsty tyrant, even though his previous terms in office were not dictatorial. Albeit feted as a national hero during much of his lifetime, historians have since depicted Santa Anna as a cynical turncoat, a ruthless dictator, and the traitor who lost the U.S.-Mexican War on purpose. However, recent scholarship has led to a significant revision of this interpretation. The aim of this article is to recast our understanding of Santa Anna and his legacy bearing in mind the latest findings. In the process it demonstrates how important it is to engage with the complexities of the multilayered regional and national contexts of the time in order to understand the politics of Independent Mexico.

“Imagined Territory: The Republic of China’s 1955 Veto of Mongolian Membership in the United Nations”

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-295
Author(s):  
Keith Allan Clark II
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
The Public ◽  
The World ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Republic

In 1955, Jiang Tingfu, representing the Republic of China (roc), vetoed Mongolia’s entry into the United Nations. In the 26 years the roc represented China in the United Nations, it only cast this one veto. The roc’s veto was a contentious move because Taipei had recognized Mongolia as a sovereign state in 1946. A majority of the world body, including the United States, favored Mongolia’s admission as part of a deal to end the international organization’s deadlocked-admissions problem. The roc’s veto placed it not only in opposition to the United Nations but also its primary benefactor. This article describes the public and private discourse surrounding this event to analyze how roc representatives portrayed the veto and what they thought Mongolian admission to the United Nations represented. It also examines international reactions to Taipei’s claims and veto. It argues that in 1955 Mongolia became a synecdoche for all of China that Taipei claimed to represent, and therefore roc representatives could not acknowledge it as a sovereign state.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document