Search and Search

• Home
• sitemap

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. Because it's sort of like selling children for slavery.

   It also gives an unfair incentive to the judge to declare someone guilty.

   Comment by Savvy M — February 26, 2009 #

2. Because it's corruption and unethical

   Comment by Mary — February 26, 2009 #

3. They should also receive bribes to not convict people for killing other people even though they are covered in blood. Along with the jury.

   Comment by Silly Penguin — February 26, 2009 #

4. It is selling kids into slavery.

   Comment by lblack — February 26, 2009 #

5. Morals. Losing them was a mistake.

   Comment by Dering — February 26, 2009 #

6. No because Judges are either elected or appointed by elected officials. Its not there job to have side deals that involve unfair government contracts.

   Comment by bmetcalf84 — February 26, 2009 #

7. What does this have to do with the free market?!

   Comment by IceT — February 26, 2009 #

8. The judiciary isn't part of the free market.

   Comment by February1 — February 26, 2009 #

9. ok if the judge is making money for sending people to prison then why would he find anyone not guilty. he would judge everyone to be guilty so he can make more money.
   The Free market pertains to business not to government. Judges should be impartial and not subject to the temptation of making money based on how they rule.

   Additionally I am sure that not all wardens are aware of the corrupt and illegal practice they are up against and therefore they are not participating in the bidding process. Therefore it is not a free market.

   if the judiciary was part of the free market all poor people would end up in prison and rich people never would go to prison, they would buy their way out.

   Comment by Aviator — February 26, 2009 #

10. By definition of a free market buyers and sellers do not coerce each other, in the sense that they obtain each other's property without the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or fraud, nor is it coerced by a third party

    Comment by Forget War Buy More (RPCV) — February 26, 2009 #

11. I swear…this stuff never ends, does it? You would think that we didn't have corruption in the world until 2008, huh? The way everyone seems to be coming out of the woodwork….

    And in answer to your question…they are paid with taxpayer dollars, thereby nixing any "free market" principles….let alone the ETHICAL and civil ones.

    Comment by §§pecial Unicorn — February 26, 2009 #

12. Only an American would consider justice and truth to be saleable commodities.

    That's why there is neither of them there.

    Sorrowfully,

    Karma Singh

    Comment by Karma Singh — February 26, 2009 #

13. Its almost like there is something wrong with the system maybe the jury should decide the sentence? One person could be vulnerable to corruption but a group of random people i think not. Though this will never happen take a look at the strongest lobby in the United States, its the prison lobby. Also it cost so much money to receive a call from prison, I here phone companies make a killing off this service. These types of companies have a bad interest in the prison system.

    Comment by kevin22892289 — February 26, 2009 #

14. 1: As mentioned above it motives so called judges into biased convictions in situations the minor might not otherwise be imprisoned.

    2: Judges are paid too much already.

    3: Sending minors into prison will probably not fix whatever problems they have, perhaps even aggravate them.

    4: An outright violation of the law.

    Comment by clone630271 — February 26, 2009 #

15. Government employees, including judges, are not part of the free market so long as they remain government employees. They are free to leave, if they will, but the job requirements do not allow for using authority for personal gain. For the free market to flourish, the courts that enforce contracts and resolve disputes must be predictable and that means operating under the rule of law, not selling decisions for personal gain.

    Comment by laughter_every_day — February 26, 2009 #

16. Yes, it should. Free market fundamentalists don't really care about this sort of thing, as it doesn't pose a problem for the wealthy. But if they're pressed on it, they just offer some sort of pathetic, unsubstantiated cop-out like "well the market will find a solution for this" or "if they weren't government employees, it wouldn't be happening."

    Comment by The Daily Elitist — February 26, 2009 #

17. Then it means that justice comes with a price tag and objectivity is just a hard word to spell

    Comment by Stephen K — February 26, 2009 #

18. You don't think that a judge getting a financial inducement to send someone to be incarcerated, when he could choose probation instead, or some other lighter non prison sentence, just invites abuse? It's called graft, or bribery. Allowing judges to take bribes turns the justice system into a sham. Our economy is supposed to be the 'free market'. Not our legal system. How ridiculous.

    Comment by LegendOfGreen — February 26, 2009 #

19. You must be really young to not know why paying judges kick backs or bonuses to convict people may not be a good idea. Would you like to see doctors in private practice get paid bonuses from hospitals to help increase their business? would you like to see your dentist get paid a bonus from a oral surgeon if he screwed up your teeth?

    Comment by Rock&Roll Cowboy — February 26, 2009 #