Private Prisons

[Joecooool]

Private Prison Corporations Are Modern Day Slave Traders

The Corrections Corporation of America believes the economic crisis has created an opportunity to become landlord, as well as manager, of a chunk of the American prison gulag.

The nation’s largest private prison company, the Corrections Corporation of America, is on a buying spree. With a war chest of $250 million, the corporation, which is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, earlier this year sent letters to 48 states, offering to buy their prisons outright. To ensure their profitability, the corporation insists that it be guaranteed that the prisons be kept at least 90 percent full. Plus, the corporate jailers demand a 20-year management contract, on top of the profits they expect to extract by spending less money per prisoner.

For the last two years, the number of inmates held in state prisons has declined slightly, largely because the states are short on money. Crime, of course, has declined dramatically in the last 20 years, but that has never dampened the states’ appetites for warehousing ever more Black and brown bodies, and the federal prison system is still growing. However, the Corrections Corporation of America believes the economic crisis has created an historic opportunity to become the landlord, as well as the manager, of a big chunk of the American prison gulag.

The attempted prison grab is also defensive in nature. If private companies can gain both ownership and management of enough prisons, they can set the prices without open-bid competition for prison services, creating a guaranteed cost-plus monopoly like that which exists between the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex.

But, for a better analogy, we must go back to the American slave system, a thoroughly capitalist enterprise that reduced human beings to units of labor and sale. The Corrections Corporation of America’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission read very much like the documents of a slave-trader. Investors are warned that profits would go down if the demand for prisoners declines. That is, if the world’s largest police state shrinks, so does the corporate bottom line. Dangers to profitability include “relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws." The corporation spells it out: “any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them." At the Corrections Corporation of America, human freedom is a dirty word.

But, there is something even more horrifying than the moral turpitude of the prison capitalists. If private companies are allowed to own the deeds to prisons, they are a big step closer to owning the people inside them. Many of the same politicians that created the system of mass Black incarceration over the past 40 years, would gladly hand over to private parties all responsibility for the human rights of inmates. The question of inmates' rights is hardly raised in the debate over prison privatization. This is a dialogue steeped in slavery and racial oppression. Just as the old slave markets were abolished, so must the Black American Gulag be dismantled – with no compensation to those who traffic in human beings.

Private Prison Corporations Are Modern Day Slave Traders | | AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/story/155199/private_prison_corporations_are_modern_day_slave_traders?akid=8678.225075.rakSV-&rd=1&t=12)

[Yerf Dog]

Private Prison Corporations Are Modern Day Slave Traders

Well except the slaves don't do any work.

[Joecooool]

Well except the slaves don't do any work.

Actually, many if not most work.

Federal Prison Industries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Rob]

I don't see a problem here.

1) These people are incarcerated because they broke the law. I could care less how much money someone makes off them.
2) CCA is in business to do one thing - make money
3) CCA operates cheaper than our state/federal jails

Why would we punish a corporation because it is successful? If the main issue is that there is no competition and fear of a monopoly, then that right there tells me there is a business opportunity for people who want to take a chance.

There is no telling the financial impact is for each one of these prisoners. (food, clothing, shelter...add in cost to monitor them, whatever was spent in police to track and finally catch these people, the cost to prosecute/defend them on taxpayers dime, how many have children that the taxpayers now care for?) There is a lot of money tied up on these people because of their own selfishness.

IMO - I would rather have public hangings once a week. Think of the money that would save.

:seasix:

[Joecooool]

Relevent -

Pa. judges accused of jailing kids for cash - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29142654/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/pa-judges-accused-jailing-kids-cash/#.T57JHPUcuOc)

[VITE1]

1) Legalize drugs
2) End Welfare
3) After three convictions for crimes of violence immediate executions.

Do al of the above and we can reduce prison populations.

[Cybercowboy]

Hmmmm, if Joecooool is against it, it's probably safe to say that it would be wise to be for it.

[mrvette]

1) Legalize drugs
2) End Welfare
3) After three convictions for crimes of violence immediate executions.

Do al of the above and we can reduce prison populations.

IF DNA is involved, trial in a week after it's in, trials in a week, lasting a MAX of two days, 2 hours deliberation is plenty.....

major crimes....say like murder or against kids....out back and shot.....

all the guys on max row....out back and killed.....

no problem....

:seasix::hurray::kimblair:

[VatorMan]

Hmmmm, if Joecooool is against it, it's probably safe to say that it would be wise to be for it.

:rofl::rofl:

[Yerf Dog]

Actually, many if not most work.

Federal Prison Industries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Industries)

strictly voluntary

:)

[VITE1]

Hmmmm, if Joecooool is against it, it's probably safe to say that it would be wise to be for it.

I wonder if he hate the Unions that push for more laws to lock people up.
Prison Guards Union Locks Up Benefits, Politicians, People - Hit & Run : Reason.com (http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/07/prison-guards-union-locks-up-b)

The CCPOA has played a significant role in advocating pro-incarceration policies and opposing pro-rehabilitative policies in California. In 1980, CCPOA’s 5,600 members earned about $21,000 a year and paid dues of about $35 a month. After the rapid expansion of the prison population beginning in the 1980s, CCPOA’s 33,000 members today earn approximately $73,000 and pay monthly dues of about $80. These dues raise approximately $23 million each year, of which the CCPOA allocates approximately $8 million to lobbying. As [author Joan] Petersilia explains, “The formula is simple: more prisoners lead to more prisons; more prisons require more guards; more guards means more dues-paying members and fund-raising capability; and fund-raising, of course, translates into political influence.”

[Kevin_73]

IMO - I would rather have public hangings once a week. Think of the money that would save.

:seasix:

Televise and sell advertising and it could even generate revenue!

Hmmmm, if Joecooool is against it, it's probably safe to say that it would be wise to be for it.

:iagree:

[jda67gta]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bEvren9O8V0/SOjzxGY-VoI/AAAAAAAAB4I/PN8G-EPPmTU/s400/hangemhigh.jpg

[island14]

Hmmmm, if Joecooool is against it, it's probably safe to say that it would be wise to be for it.

:rofl:

[Scissors]

There are only a few things I do not believe should be privatized. Prisons, like the military, are one of those things.

[mrvette]

There are only a few things I do not believe should be privatized. Prisons, like the military, are one of those things.

I understand the .mil function, and cops, but prisons?? why???

:confused5:

[NB2K]

Build more. Privatize more. Do it now!

Clearly, locking up criminals has resulted in a dramatically lower crime rate.

[Joecooool]

No comments on the corporation insisting that the jails remain at least 90% full?

Do you not see how that will impact sentencing for even the lightest of offenses?

The company in question is also one of the top lobbyist keeping all drugs illegal and pushing for minimum mandatory sentences.

Read up. "For profit" prisons are a travesty people.

[Joecooool]

Friday, June 24, 2011


Matt Stoller: Who Wants Keep the War on Drugs Going AND Put You in Debtor’s Prison?


Matt Stoller is a current fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. His Twitter feed is @matthewstoller.

More than a third of all states allow debtors “who can’t or won’t pay their debts” to be jailed. In 2010, according to the Wall Street Journal, judges have issued 5,000 such warrants. What is behind the increased pressure to incarcerate people with debts? Is it a desire to force debt payment? Or is it part of a new structure where incarceration is becoming increasingly the default tool to address any and all social problems?

Consider a different example that has nothing to do with debts. Earlier this year, a Pennsylvania judge was convicted of racketeering, of taking bribes from parties of interest in his cases. It was a fairly routine case of bribery, with one significant exception. The party making the payoffs was a builder and operator of youth prisons, and the judge was rewarding him by sending lots of kids to his prisons.

Welcome to the for-profit prison industry. It’s an industry that wants people in jail, because jail is their product. And they have shareholder expectations to meet.

Privatized prisons are marketed to international investors as “social infrastructure”, and they are part of a wave of privatization washing over the globe. Multi-billion dollar prison companies are upgraded by analysts with antiseptic words like “prospects for global prison growth”, and these companies have built a revolving door and patronage machine characteristic of any government contractor. Only, in this case, the business they are in is putting people into steel cages (or “filling beds” as they put it), and they don’t care how, why, or whether the people in those beds should be there. They don’t care if you’re in prison for smoking pot, stealing cars, or being in debt. They just want people in jail.

Here’s the 2010 10k of the Corrections Corporation of America (PDF), the largest operator of private prisons in the country. It’s a pretty simple business model – more prisoners, more money. Or, as the company writes, “Historically, we have been successful in substantially filling our inventory of available beds and the beds that we have constructed. Filling these available beds would provide substantial growth in revenues, cash flow, and earnings per share.”

CCA offers an assessment of risks to the company, which include ending the war on drugs or curbing the incarceration of undocumented immigrants.


The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them.

Many people wonder why the Obama administration is so harsh with undocumented immigrants – these words supply an explanation for why such harshness can be profitable.

But there are more risks.


Legislation has been proposed in numerous jurisdictions that could lower minimum sentences for some non-violent crimes and make more inmates eligible for early release based on good behavior. Also, sentencing alternatives under consideration could put some offenders on probation with electronic monitoring who would otherwise be incarcerated. Similarly, reductions in crime rates or resources dedicated to prevent and enforce crime could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities.

Reduced sentences, good behavior, and fewer arrests are business risks, where a high recidivism rate is a bonus in this schema. And the lobbying and campaign donations flow from the business logic, as this report lays out. These companies want to keep the war on drugs going, want caging of undocumented workers, and want to make sure that good behavior is rewarded with more jail time. And the more like a police state America becomes, the better.

And in this business, state and local budgetary problems aren’t a bug, they are a feature.


Our competitive cost structure offers prospective customers a compelling option for incarceration. The unique budgetary challenges states are facing may cause states to further rely on us to help reduce their costs, and also cause those states that have not previously utilized the private sector to turn to the private sector to help reduce their overall costs of incarceration.

There’s bizarre stuff in the 10k, like worries about “negative publicity about an escape, riot or other disturbance or perceived poor conditions at a privately managed facility may result in adverse publicity to us and the private corrections industry in general.” Or worries about being audited and subjected to criminal charges for billing clients for expenses that aren’t legitimate, if the company has incurred and billed for such expenses. And then there’s this nugget, which gives a hint of the cruelty that is in all likelihood underlying the business model.


Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission, or the FCC, has published for comment a petition for rulemaking, filed on behalf of an inmate family, which would prevent private prison managers from collecting commissions from the operations of inmate telephone systems.

It’s unclear what the specifics are, but it sounds like a business that profits by extracting money from the families of prisoners by operating as a monopolist when it comes to the use of the phone system. This is not a penal system, it’s a rentier culture applied to the freedom of human beings.

Turning denial of freedom into a for-profit industry is obviously quite dangerous, though in some senses that’s what the War on Drugs has always been about. Ryan Grim’s This Is Your Country on Drugs” shows how drug restrictions were pushed at first by the pharmaceutical industry, and then used by the CIA as an off-balance sheet financing vehicle for America’s seedier allies. Now the War on Drugs is a substantial part of the prison-industrial complex.

The War on Drugs and this new prison industry is a template for where we seem to be heading as a culture. In the last ten years or so, a disturbing part of the system has metastasized into the system itself. As our financial system has increasingly and more overtly dominated the very structure of the country, freedom itself is being commoditized.

Debtor’s prison are making a comeback because of the debt collection industry. Elites like former Comptroller David Walker are waxing nostalgically for more punitive measures in the face of a population that simply cannot pay its debts. The for-profit prison industry fits right in to this trend, both in terms of the financialization of the industry itself and the increased market for “beds” sought by for-profit prison lobbyists in terms of harsher prison sentences.

Trying to end the war on drugs and stopping the incarceration of undocumented workers should move up the priority list. Once it becomes profitable to put people into steel cages, then it becomes profitable for judges to sell children in some creepy bizarro 21st century version of Oliver Twist. And if you think the housing bubble was bad because it misallocated resources, or foreclosure fraud is bad because it allows powerful actors to seize property based on raw power, then imagine what could happen if the logic of the for-profit prison system met the same type of leveraged financial hurricane.

[VITE1]

No comments on the corporation insisting that the jails remain at least 90% full?

Do you not see how that will impact sentencing for even the lightest of offenses?

The company in question is also one of the top lobbyist keeping all drugs illegal and pushing for minimum mandatory sentences.

Read up. "For profit" prisons are a travesty people.



No comment that the PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS of many state PUSH for tougher and tougher sentencing for more job security?

[BuckyThreadkiller]

Phil, how is it you came back from Germany, when obviously you should be there running for Chancellor on the Socialist ticket?

[Rob]

Read up. "For profit" prisons are a travesty people.

No. The problem is that not everything you read is 100% of the truth. If the writer of an article has an agenda (which most do) they are going to give you the facts to present the issue to you in the manner that they want you to lean.

Politicians donut daily.

[Loco Vette]

No comments on the corporation insisting that the jails remain at least 90% full?

Depends on the "or else". I suspect that the state has a monetary obligation in the effect that that threshold is not met, which may or may not be less than the per capita cost of housing the prisoner in the CCA-owned prison. I am also pretty sure that affects only the prisons CCA is offering to buy, not the entire state's prison system, allowing the state to shift prisoners from state-owned to private if the threshold is threatened.

Do you not see how that will impact sentencing for even the lightest of offenses?
I really don't think there is a dearth of crime being committed. In fact, recognizing that the lack of a connection between the commission of a crime and the possibility of actually getting punished, I think a lot of criminals are far from discouraged by the possibilty of imprisonment.

As far as heavier sentences for lighter crimes, first offense posession w/o intent to distribute, theft of property under $500, etc are often dealt with outside of the prison system unless you are the guy who has not learned form the previous trips through the process. Get a copy of "Just Busted' or the equivalent in your neck of the woods each week and see how many frequent flyers you run across.


The company in question is also one of the top lobbyist keeping all drugs illegal and pushing for minimum mandatory sentences.

Read up. "For profit" prisons are a travesty people.

There is an aspect of that that you might appreciate, however. In state-run prisons, the guards are state employees and are protected by that fact from a lot of the worst things that can happen in civil litigation. The CCA employees and their employer are not. I would think that would appeal to you.

[69camfrk]

1) Legalize drugs
2) End Welfare
3) After three convictions for crimes of violence immediate executions.

Do al of the above and we can reduce prison populations.

:iagree: Politicians will never listen to reason though.

[NB2K]

No comment on how crime continues to fall?

No comment on how crime, if left unchecked, affects insurance rates and property values, not to mention the social cost?

Build.
More.
Jails.

Damn, it's hard to dispute facts.

[Cybercowboy]

No. The problem is that not everything you read is 100% of the truth. If the writer of an article has an agenda (which most do) they are going to give you the facts to present the issue to you in the manner that they want you to lean.

Politicians donut daily.

You mean that you can't just read Mother Jones, alternet, and The Nation for a well-rounded view of things?

[Torqaholic]

Only way they'll make money off me if if they're in the funeral business.

[Bill]

Hmmmm, if Joecooool is against it, it's probably safe to say that it would be wise to be for it.

Wrong, at least in this case. You have a clear conflict of interest. The private prisons make money by inmate/day. They have a clear interest in keeping inmates as long as they possibly can, regardless of their rehabilitation. Maybe they "encourage" guards to create or enhance disciplinary problems to make the inmates look less attractive to be released on parole.

And requesting guarantees of so many inmates? WTF? That puts the onus on judges, prosecutors, etc. to have a de facto quota system. Oh, crap, we haven't sent enough people to prison this month. We better step it up or we will be in violation of our prison contract. Let's go for more and stiffer sentances for marginal cases that might have otherwise warranted probation, restitution, or having their cases dropped outright.

Private prisons are wrong, period, precisely because it creates incentives for gross miscarriages of justice.

The US already leads the WORLD in incarceration rates, even more than repressive regimes like China. Why is that? Why would you want to create a system to make that number even higher?

[Bill]

No comment that the PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS of many state PUSH for tougher and tougher sentencing for more job security?

I'll comment. That is also F'ed up. They are just one of many interest groups that promote the failed War on Drugs. The war is lost. Let it go, and find new jobs, guys. It's like staying in Afghanistan. WTF is the point? We aren't going to "win". It is what it is. All we are doing at this point is keeping people employed.....soldiers, contractors, and a whole host of corrupt Afghanis.

[Bill]

No comment on how crime continues to fall?

No comment on how crime, if left unchecked, affects insurance rates and property values, not to mention the social cost?

Build.
More.
Jails.

Damn, it's hard to dispute facts.

I've got no problems with locking up people that hurt others. My problem is we are locking up people that are NOT hurting others, or if they are indirectly hurting others, it is due to failed government policies.

If we just allowed people to grow their own pot, for example, we wouldn't have pot users indirectly supporting the Mexican drug gangs. The fault is not the users, the fault is with government prohibition. The parallel with alcohol prohibition is eerily familiar. Do we look back and blame thirsty Americans for Al Capone and his counterparts, or do we instead blame a bad government policy?

[mrvette]

Wrong, at least in this case. You have a clear conflict of interest. The private prisons make money by inmate/day. They have a clear interest in keeping inmates as long as they possibly can, regardless of their rehabilitation. Maybe they "encourage" guards to create or enhance disciplinary problems to make the inmates look less attractive to be released on parole.

And requesting guarantees of so many inmates? WTF? That puts the onus on judges, prosecutors, etc. to have a de facto quota system. Oh, crap, we haven't sent enough people to prison this month. We better step it up or we will be in violation of our prison contract. Let's go for more and stiffer sentances for marginal cases that might have otherwise warranted probation, restitution, or having their cases dropped outright.

Private prisons are wrong, period, precisely because it creates incentives for gross miscarriages of justice.

The US already leads the WORLD in incarceration rates, even more than repressive regimes like China. Why is that? Why would you want to create a system to make that number even higher?


YGTBFKM.....


BECAUSE the Chinese do the obvious....

take the most egregious out back and spend ten cents worth of ammo and send the ammo bill to the families.....what MORE of a wake UP call to certain groups can be sent????

:issues::rofl:

[VITE1]

I'll comment. That is also F'ed up. They are just one of many interest groups that promote the failed War on Drugs. The war is lost. Let it go, and find new jobs, guys. It's like staying in Afghanistan. WTF is the point? We aren't going to "win". It is what it is. All we are doing at this point is keeping people employed.....soldiers, contractors, and a whole host of corrupt Afghanis.

Greed is geeed. And I agree. What the left fails to understand is when the government gets greedy we have no recourse. When private busineas gets greedy we can move to the lower cost supplier.

[69camfrk]

[/COLOR]

YGTBFKM.....


BECAUSE the Chinese do the obvious....

take the most egregious out back and spend ten cents worth of ammo and send the ammo bill to the families.....what MORE of a wake UP call to certain groups can be sent????

:issues::rofl:

But then again, the Chinese will come in and torture your family. Apples and oranges there friend. You need to look no further than the guy that is hiding out at the embassy right now. Violent criminals have no place in a "civilized" society, that being said, throwing people in jail and keeping them for dumb shit is way out of control. For profit prisons in my opinion are very dangerous.

[NB2K]

I've got no problems with locking up people that hurt others. My problem is we are locking up people that are NOT hurting others, or if they are indirectly hurting others, it is due to failed government policies.

If we just allowed people to grow their own pot, for example, we wouldn't have pot users indirectly supporting the Mexican drug gangs. The fault is not the users, the fault is with government prohibition. The parallel with alcohol prohibition is eerily familiar. Do we look back and blame thirsty Americans for Al Capone and his counterparts, or do we instead blame a bad government policy?

I really don't think we are locking up non-violent drug offenders.

We are locking up, for longer periods, 3x felony losers.

This is why crime is falling.

That is indisputable.

[The real Corvette Kid]

The comparison to slavery is invalid, too. The slaves didn't do anything to deserve losing their freedom.

[mrvette]

But then again, the Chinese will come in and torture your family. Apples and oranges there friend. You need to look no further than the guy that is hiding out at the embassy right now. Violent criminals have no place in a "civilized" society, that being said, throwing people in jail and keeping them for dumb shit is way out of control. For profit prisons in my opinion are very dangerous.

I see it as a matter of cost effective administration and LO overhead, much less denial of TV and cphones and whatever luxury items inmates want....

be ME, there be NO fat inmates...much less workout gyms....or anything over a open field to walk around for a hour a day to get some sunlight....no sports, nothing....

unlike most of you all, I BEEN inside ATTICA MAX ward with the prisoners....also Walpole, Lorton, and many others....with the inmates in the hallways, and seen the cell doors.....I was doing high sense metal detector work screening for needles, chives, anything they carry....learned a LOT from those guys, on a tech sense, as well as the feeling they should ALL be taken out back and shot on site....every last one of them....

:issues::seasix:

[Joecooool]

I really don't think we are locking up non-violent drug offenders.

We are locking up, for longer periods, 3x felony losers.

This is why crime is falling.

That is indisputable.You can not possibly be serious.

"Nonviolent offenders make up more than 60 percent of the prison and jail population. Nonviolent drug offenders now account for about one-fourth of all inmates"

Prison Math - Reason.com (http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/08/prison-math)

[VITE1]

You can not possibly be serious.

"Nonviolent offenders make up more than 60 percent of the prison and jail population. Nonviolent drug offenders now account for about one-fourth of all inmates"

Prison Math - Reason.com (http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/08/prison-math)

You are correct. :iagree:

[Cybercowboy]

Wrong, at least in this case. You have a clear conflict of interest. The private prisons make money by inmate/day. They have a clear interest in keeping inmates as long as they possibly can, regardless of their rehabilitation. Maybe they "encourage" guards to create or enhance disciplinary problems to make the inmates look less attractive to be released on parole.

And requesting guarantees of so many inmates? WTF? That puts the onus on judges, prosecutors, etc. to have a de facto quota system. Oh, crap, we haven't sent enough people to prison this month. We better step it up or we will be in violation of our prison contract. Let's go for more and stiffer sentances for marginal cases that might have otherwise warranted probation, restitution, or having their cases dropped outright.

Private prisons are wrong, period, precisely because it creates incentives for gross miscarriages of justice.

The US already leads the WORLD in incarceration rates, even more than repressive regimes like China. Why is that? Why would you want to create a system to make that number even higher?

I never can figure the hard-core Libertarians out. Supposedly they want private enterprise to take over the vast majority of government functions, yet, here, you want the opposite. What makes a private prison much different from a government-ran prison with public union employees dictating all sorts of policies that encourage incarceration? Plus, what can we do about that? Vote for a new prison bureaucracy? :lol:

Meh, I'm all for not tossing non-violent drug offenders into prison and have been my whole life. Recently the POTUS made a speech blasting for-profit colleges. Meanwhile, our state universities, private universities, and other "non-profit" schools have been raising tuition and lowering graduate quality for decades. Yet it's the for-profit schools, where you are most likely to have innovation in the way we teach students, as the bogey-man.

Do you think, perhaps, that public unions representing prison workers might have a tiny bit of PR going on here? Hmmmm?

[Scissors]

I understand the .mil function, and cops, but prisons?? why???

:confused5:

Putting a financial incentive to incarcerate is wrong, just as putting a financial incentive on killing is wrong. Both should be done for the right reasons, not simply to earn a buck.

[VITE1]

Putting a financial incentive to incarcerate is wrong, just as putting a financial incentive on killing is wrong. Both should be done for the right reasons, not simply to earn a buck.

Again :iagree:



But the fact the Public Employee unions have been doing the same thing for a longer period of time is wrong as well.

Part of the reason the prisons are going to For profit organizations is the Corrections unions have done such a great job of driving up the inmate population by supporting all sorts of tough new laws that increase their membership and they have also done a wonderful job of increasing their wages and benefits.

Why is it wrong for a private company to make a declared profit when Unions and the government have been doing the same thing buy the "Profit" is funneled to special interest groups that support more government?

[Chris Fowler]

Putting a financial incentive to incarcerate is wrong, just as putting a financial incentive on killing is wrong. Both should be done for the right reasons, not simply to earn a buck.
I was in the "who cares, business is business and the more that's out of the fed.gov hands the better" group...but this argument makes some sense to me. :cheers:

[Craig]

I'll make a few points here:

CCA has no more control in keeping it's prisons full than a government run prison (other than keeping its costs competitive).

CCA has no more incentive in keeping it's prisons full than a government prison employee.

CCA is a customer of ours, we build their facilities and I have one on my desk as we speak; I wish them all the success in the world!!:thumbs:

[BuckyThreadkiller]

I was in the "who cares, business is business and the more that's out of the fed.gov hands the better" group...but this argument makes some sense to me. :cheers:

Up to a point. But, I see how it could also work as a deterrent.
In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. But once that guilt is proven - you're a ward of the state. Every inmate has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed a felony. These are not good people. They've had the benefit of every doubt the system can create.

So once they are in, they do everything they can to then get out - best behavior, earning points as a trustee, trying harder to be off the radar of the powers that be, so they can be considered for early release or parole.

What if they knew that changed? What if the bad guys knew that once they were in prison, they folks in charge were going to do everything they could make sure that they DIDN't get out? That the 5-7 years, really meant 7 years. And the operators of the prison had a financial stake in making sure they were in for every day of it.

Maybe - just maybe, some of those folks might think twice about the crime, knowing there was little to no chance for leniency.

[Joecooool]

Up to a point. But, I see how it could also work as a deterrent.
In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. But once that guilt is proven - you're a ward of the state. Every inmate has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed a felony. These are not good people. They've had the benefit of every doubt the system can create.

So once they are in, they do everything they can to then get out - best behavior, earning points as a trustee, trying harder to be off the radar of the powers that be, so they can be considered for early release or parole.

What if they knew that changed? What if the bad guys knew that once they were in prison, they folks in charge were going to do everything they could make sure that they DIDN't get out? That the 5-7 years, really meant 7 years. And the operators of the prison had a financial stake in making sure they were in for every day of it.

Maybe - just maybe, some of those folks might think twice about the crime, knowing there was little to no chance for leniency.Then again, if there was no incentive to behave well in jail, I'm pretty sure you would see a significant increase in riots and prison violence.

[Chris Fowler]

Then again, if there was no incentive to behave well in jail, I'm pretty sure you would see a significant increase in riots and prison violence.
There are other incentives to behavior other than early release.

[Joecooool]

Putting a financial incentive to incarcerate is wrong, just as putting a financial incentive on killing is wrong. Both should be done for the right reasons, not simply to earn a buck.

Yup.

WILKES-BARRE, Pa. — For years, the juvenile court system in Wilkes-Barre operated like a conveyor belt: Youngsters were brought before judges without a lawyer, given hearings that lasted only a minute or two, and then sent off to juvenile prison for months for minor offenses.

The explanation, prosecutors say, was corruption on the bench.

In one of the most shocking cases of courtroom graft on record, two Pennsylvania judges have been charged with taking millions of dollars in kickbacks to send teenagers to two privately run youth detention centers.

“I’ve never encountered, and I don’t think that we will in our lifetimes, a case where literally thousands of kids’ lives were just tossed aside in order for a couple of judges to make some money,” said Marsha Levick, an attorney with the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, which is representing hundreds of youths sentenced in Wilkes-Barre.

Prosecutors say Luzerne County Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan took $2.6 million in payoffs to put juvenile offenders in lockups run by PA Child Care LLC and a sister company, Western PA Child Care LLC. The judges were charged on Jan. 26 and removed from the bench by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court shortly afterward.

No company officials have been charged, but the investigation is still going on.

The high court, meanwhile, is looking into whether hundreds or even thousands of sentences should be overturned and the juveniles’ records expunged.

Among the offenders were teenagers who were locked up for months for stealing loose change from cars, writing a prank note and possessing drug paraphernalia. Many had never been in trouble before. Some were imprisoned even after probation officers recommended against it.

Many appeared without lawyers, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1967 ruling that children have a constitutional right to counsel.

The judges are scheduled to plead guilty to fraud Thursday in federal court. Their plea agreements call for sentences of more than seven years behind bars.

Ciavarella, 58, who presided over Luzerne County’s juvenile court for 12 years, acknowledged last week in a letter to his former colleagues, “I have disgraced my judgeship. My actions have destroyed everything I worked to accomplish and I have only myself to blame.” Ciavarella, though, has denied he got kickbacks for sending youths to prison.


Conahan, 56, has remained silent about the case.

Many Pennsylvania counties contract with privately run juvenile detention centers, paying them either a fixed overall fee or a certain amount per youth, per day.

In Luzerne County, prosecutors say, Conahan shut down the county-run juvenile prison in 2002 and helped the two companies secure rich contracts worth tens of millions of dollars, at least some of that dependent on how many juveniles were locked up.

One of the contracts — a 20-year agreement with PA Child Care worth an estimated $58 million — was later canceled by the county as exorbitant.

The judges are accused of taking payoffs between 2003 and 2006.

Robert J. Powell co-owned PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care until June. His attorney, Mark Sheppard, said his client was the victim of an extortion scheme.

“Bob Powell never solicited a nickel from these judges and really was a victim of their demands,” he said. “These judges made it very plain to Mr. Powell that he was going to be required to pay certain monies.”

For years, youth advocacy groups complained that Ciavarella was ridiculously harsh and ran roughshod over youngsters’ constitutional rights. Ciavarella sent a quarter of his juvenile defendants to detention centers from 2002 to 2006, compared with a statewide rate of one in 10.

The criminal charges confirmed the advocacy groups’ worst suspicions and have called into question all the sentences he pronounced.

Hillary Transue did not have an attorney, nor was she told of her right to one, when she appeared in Ciavarella’s courtroom in 2007 for building a MySpace page that lampooned her assistant principal.

Her mother, Laurene Transue, worked for 16 years in the child services department of another county and said she was certain Hillary would get a slap on the wrist. Instead, Ciavarella sentenced her to three months; she got out after a month, with help from a lawyer.

“I felt so disgraced for a while, like, what do people think of me now?” said Hillary, now 17 and a high school senior who plans to become an English teacher.

Laurene Transue said Ciavarella “was playing God. And not only was he doing that, he was getting money for it. He was betraying the trust put in him to do what is best for children.”

Kurt Kruger, now 22, had never been in trouble with the law until the day police accused him of acting as a lookout while his friend shoplifted less than $200 worth of DVDs from Wal-Mart. He said he didn’t know his friend was going to steal anything.

Kruger pleaded guilty before Ciavarella and spent three days in a company-run juvenile detention center, plus four months at a youth wilderness camp run by a different operator.

“Never in a million years did I think that I would actually get sent away. I was completely destroyed,” said Kruger, who later dropped out of school. He said he wants to get his record expunged, earn his high school equivalency diploma and go to college.

“I got a raw deal, and yeah, it’s not fair,” he said, “but now it’s 100 times bigger than me.”

The Associated Press.

[Craig]

Then again, if there was no incentive to behave well in jail, I'm pretty sure you would see a significant increase in riots and prison violence.

Maybe you've answered your own question regarding CCA...

[BuckyThreadkiller]

Then again, if there was no incentive to behave well in jail, I'm pretty sure you would see a significant increase in riots and prison violence.

If your choice is a firm serious sentence in a facility that has an atmosphere of riots and violence, vs, three hots and a cot, healthcare, cable TV and all the smokes you can smuggle in, then perhaps prison might seem more like - you know - prison.

[NB2K]

Putting a financial incentive to incarcerate is wrong, just as putting a financial incentive on killing is wrong. Both should be done for the right reasons, not simply to earn a buck.

You can't possibly be referring to the 90% number that the contractor requires?

[NB2K]

You can not possibly be serious.

"Nonviolent offenders make up more than 60 percent of the prison and jail population. Nonviolent drug offenders now account for about one-fourth of all inmates"

Prison Math - Reason.com (http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/08/prison-math)

I am as serious as a heart attack.

Those "non-violent" asswipes run meth labs and steal cooper from ac units. They break into and steal cars. They steal credit card numbers. They shoplift.
They steal eveything they can lay their grubby little hands on.
We get to pay for all that, except we get ****ed out of the buzz.

I like how everybidy thinks the prisons are full of weedheads who got busted at a stoplight for doing a number.:rofl:

[Joecooool]

I'll make a few points here:

CCA has no more control in keeping it's prisons full than a government run prison (other than keeping its costs competitive).

CCA has no more incentive in keeping it's prisons full than a government prison employee.

CCA is a customer of ours, we build their facilities and I have one on my desk as we speak; I wish them all the success in the world!!:thumbs:


Jailhouse bloc

By HARVEY SILVERGLATE AND KYLE SMEALLIE

Part of the now-infamous war on crime, a 100-to-1 ratio was implemented in sentencing for crack cocaine. So, a person caught selling five grams of crack received the same prison sentence as someone dealing 500 grams of powder cocaine.

The mandatory-minimums were harsh, too. That same person caught selling five grams of crack received a five-year minimum sentence; 50 grams or more and the minimum was 10 years.

Despite clear racial, economic, and cultural disparities, cries from constituents fell on deaf ears while law-enforcement lobbyists successfully cajoled and frightened congressional leaders.

US Attorney General Michael Mukasey, for one, strongly opposed reducing the crack-cocaine minimums. The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), a 325,000 member national organization that bills itself as "the voice of our nations' law-enforcement officers," also spent $550,000 lobbying Congress over the past three years. Among their interests: stopping the Powder-Crack Cocaine Penalty Equalization Act, along with promoting a litany of other Draconian measures.

Prison business
To be fair, government employees weren't the only ones to lobby against crack-cocaine sentence equalization. A little-recognized subset of this vast prison-industrial complex lobbying community is composed of private correctional corporations, which sign lucrative contracts with governments to house inmates for profit, often shipping them to facilities out of state.

It is, of course, in these private prisons' economic interests to see more people in prison serving longer sentences. And with current facilities bursting at the seams, times for this burgeoning industry are good. The country's largest private prison provider, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), spent more than $2.7 million from 2006 through September 2008 on lobbying for stricter laws. Last year alone, the company, listed on the New York Stock Exchange, generated $133 million in net income.

For the past 25 years, the CCA has built itself into a corrections powerhouse — it operates nearly 70 facilities housing more than 75,000 detainees. As it does for, say, contractors in Iraq, though, privatization comes with an inevitable lack of oversight. The CCA has been involved in numerous wrongful-death lawsuits, and it has been a constant target of prison-reform groups who claim the private facilities are understaffed and their detainees abused.

Yet another private prison provider, the GEO Group, which has annual revenue topping $1 billion, has come under intense scrutiny for dozens — if not hundreds — of inmate deaths in the past decade. One such prisoner death led to the recent indictment of Vice-President Dick Cheney on November 18, in which a rather ornery Texas state prosecutor claimed that Cheney's substantial investments in the GEO Group made him partly responsible for prisoner abuse — a dubious prosecutorial theory (in fact, it was dismissed this Monday), but with a grain of practical truth.

Nonetheless, states facing prison overcrowding turn to these corporations to outsource inmates. California, for example, has commissioned the CCA to ship convicts as far away as Tennessee (where financially strapped relatives and friends frequently cannot visit). The CCA has exported nearly 4000 California prisoners to states across the country under a $115 million contract with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Over the next three years, 8000 more are planned to be shipped out of the Golden State.

Thus, these law-enforcement officials were able to avoid any technical wrongdoing while lobbying for an increased legislative arsenal — feathering their own nests at the expense of liberty and sensible public policy.

Bear in mind, though, that our First Amendment protects not only speech, but also "the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So state and local law-enforcement personnel, like other citizens, do have the right to lobby voters and even members of the legislature to promote more expansive criminal laws and stricter penalties. But self-serving lobbying and public-relations offensives, disguised as seeking protections for society, should be treated with exceptional scrutiny and skepticism.

Though disheartening, their actions are an age-old fact of life best described by Charles Dickens in his classic 1853 novel Bleak House: "The one great principle of the English law is to make business for itself."

Coke vs. crack
A similar battle waged in Massachusetts last summer, when law-enforcement groups sought once again to thwart criminal-justice reform. At the time, a legislative effort to help nonviolent offenders find employment opportunities by changing Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) laws was brought before the State House of Representatives — and, thanks to the efforts of state Attorney General Martha Coakley and other law-enforcement officials, essentially squashed.

The proposed bill would have restricted the type of personal information that some employers receive, thereby assisting the many individuals saddled with CORI records who struggle to find employment and end up back behind bars.

Massachusetts's recidivism rates are nearly 40 percent, according to a study by the Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. And the CORI law's branding of even the most innocuous offender is, by all accounts, partly responsible for this dismal situation. So advocates of the bill asserted that changing CORI could ease the massive overcrowding at the state's prison system, which the Department of Corrections recently estimated to be operating at "144 percent of capacity." (Currently, there are 12,000 inmates imprisoned — a disgraceful state record.)

Another aspect of that same failed bill would have reduced mandatory-minimum sentences for certain drug offenses, which advocates said also contribute to overcrowding.

As the law stands, anyone convicted of selling drugs within 1000 feet of a school zone automatically receives a two-year prison term — leaving no room for judicial discretion. That means a first-time offender with no record could receive more prison time than, say, an armed robber. And the mandatory nature of these sentences eliminates the possibility of parole.

Because of the numerous schools in dense urban areas, poor, black, and Hispanic populations are at a greater risk of facing the mandatory-minimum measures, according to a recent Prison Policy Initiative study.

Yet despite the clear inequalities in the current law, as well as the benefits that reform holds out to both taxpayers and public safety — not to mention liberty — the legislative term ended in July with no action taken on the reform legislation.

This problem with drug sentencing is nothing new. For more than two decades, prison-reform supporters have condemned the federal sentencing disparities for the mostly middle and upper-class defendants caught using cocaine, and the mostly lower-class, inner-city habitants caught with cheaper crack cocaine.

The societal costs — both human and financial — of these policies and practices are enormous, and growing. California — which carried a $15.2 billion deficit into this fiscal year — spends $10 billion per year on more than 170,000 inmates. Like the Bay State, California also faces high recidivism rates; state records show that more than two-thirds of released inmates return to prison within three years. In this context, a ballot battle — possibly more contentious than Massachusetts's Question 2 scuffle — raged this past election season. Two separate initiatives, each from vastly different perspectives, concerned the state's approach to criminal justice.

The first, Proposition 5, would have expanded treatment programs for those convicted of drug-related and nonviolent crimes. While the costs for more rehabilitation were estimated at $1 billion a year, analysts said $2.5 billion would have been saved from the reduction in prison costs. But, much like what transpired in Massachusetts, the California District Attorney's Association, along with other law-enforcement agencies, vehemently opposed the initiative. These agencies raised nearly $400,000 and, through the Web site of their umbrella group, People Against Proposition 5, issued "facts" such as "Proposition 5 creates an 'Express Lane' for drug dealers to get back on the streets and peddling dope to our kids."

Conversely, nearly $1 billion would have been added to the cops' coffers under Proposition 6, which proposed new laws for prosecutors to fight gang activity. Many of the same law-enforcement agencies that opposed Prop 5 supported Prop 6, joined by some "tough-on-crime" lawmakers who slashed $3 billion in education from the state's 2008 budget. Included among the Prop 6 supporters was — you guessed it — the CCA.

The CCA's lobbying efforts, as well as those of publicly funded law-enforcement agents, wasn't enough to convince Californians, as nearly 70 percent of voters opposed Prop 6. Yet similarly high numbers opted against Prop 5.

Maybe the cops' Prop 6 push for more crime-fighting money and power were too transparent for voters. Interestingly, though, their appeals to public safety in opposing Prop 5 seemed to work. California voters were quite possibly unaware that, by maintaining strict criminal laws and closing off alternatives to incarceration, law-enforcement agencies maintained their strength.

The 1 percent solution?
From Niccolò Machiavelli to Rudy Giuliani, fear has been the foundation of ever-expanding political power (and, for some, job status and security). And it continues to drive the prison-industrial complex.

Just as the United States Department of Justice was able to pressure Congress to enact the infamous USA-Patriot Act in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, here in the Bay State, an appeal to fear ("protect the children") prevailed in stampeding the legislature. In late July, Governor Deval Patrick signed into law "An Act Further Protecting Children," a bill providing stricter mandatory-minimum sentences for sex offenders who target children.

The way this legislation was presented made opposition appear callous and irresponsible. Who, after all, wouldn't want to keep child predators off the streets?

Yet tucked away in this bill are provisions that do far more than simply protect the young. The proposal enables prosecutors to obtain private records from Internet and telephone providers by issuing an "administrative subpoena." Prosecutors, having only to assert that records are "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation," were granted ever-expanding access into otherwise personal data. The telecoms, in turn, were granted blanket immunity from claims of privacy violation. There was no mass protest from the customers.

But at least one person did object. Newton's Democratic state senator Cynthia Creem voiced skepticism in a July 29 Newton TAB op-ed. Mindful that the most egregious provisions of the Patriot Act have been used to target not just terrorists but journalists, activists, and Muslim charities, she wrote: "I cannot support this attack on privacy rights when less-invasive and equally effective means are available. Our liberties should never be sacrificed in the name of prosecutorial convenience." A few other scattered voices in the State Senate echoed Creem. But perhaps Creem's reference to "convenience" missed the point — prosecutorial power appears to have been the more likely goal.

When the bill was passed by the Massachusetts House and presented to the Senate, Coakley, having learned that other politicians were questioning the bill's scope, lobbied hard so that no language would be changed (which would have required passage again through the House). With robust MDAA support, as well as the backing of key legislative leaders, 11 different role-call votes for amending provisions of the bill were voted down. Less than two weeks after this truncated debate, the bill became law. Experienced observers of the legislative process marveled at the ability of Coakley and her allies to forestall changes to the legislation.

The United States — "land of the free" — has five percent of the world's population, but it also, thanks to the lobbyists and officiants behind the prison-industrial complex, shamefully holds 25 percent of the world's incarcerated. It has a higher rate of imprisonment than the planet's most notorious despotisms. One in 100 Americans is in jail.

These citizens are not only unproductive, they cost the public $45 billion a year, according to a June report by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics. And yet they also keep a small army of officers and other law-enforcement support personnel on the job. The monumental taxpayer's tab that would be unnecessary with saner criminal-justice laws is virtually incalculable.

It is long past the time to re-think how much credence we should give to those who claim to be experts in law enforcement, but who, in reality, have simply discovered a steady and ever-increasing source of job security.

Their First Amendment right to lobby for endless new criminal laws and ever-tougher prison sentences is indeed constitutionally protected, but this does not mean that these law-enforcement officials' criminal "expertise" should endow them with a free pass from critical scrutiny. Legislators and the public need not sit by idly as their fellow citizens are unjustly arrested, prosecuted, and often incarcerated for increasingly lengthy periods of time as the law-enforcement industry's wallet grows fat. The next time prison-industrial-complex adherents tell us we need tougher laws and sentences for our own good, we should point out precisely whose good is being served.


Read more: Freedom watch: Jailhouse bloc - News Features (http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/73092-freedom-watch-jailhouse-bloc/#ixzz1tdIPgMrl)

[Craig]

I can’t address all of that, I’ve actually got to get ready for a conference call on our CCA project.

At face value, CCA lobbying for longer prison sentences smells; but not knowing the specific nature, I can’t say whether I agree with it or not.

The government has to pay for every prisoner, public or private, so there’s an incentive there not to incarcerate more people than necessary.

Since every wrongful death story I’ve ever heard of in the news has been a public prison, I’ll assume it happens there too.

The prison we’re building is in California, maybe they won’t have to ship them to Tennessee when we’re done.

More to follow…

Oh and...Freedom Watch hs a financial incentive involved here too...

[VITE1]

I can’t address all of that, I’ve actually got to get ready for a conference call on our CCA project.

At face value, CCA lobbying for longer prison sentences smells; but not knowing the specific nature, I can’t say whether I agree with it or not.

The government has to pay for every prisoner, public or private, so there’s an incentive there not to incarcerate more people than necessary.

Since every wrongful death story I’ve ever heard of in the news has been a public prison, I’ll assume it happens there too.

The prison we’re building is in California, maybe they won’t have to ship them to Tennessee when we’re done.

More to follow…

Oh and...Freedom Watch hs a financial incentive involved here too...

The bolded area you are incorrect.



The government does not want to save money. The more money they have, the more power they have.

Government NEVER takes the cost effective route. They ALWAYS take the route the provide the politicians in power MORE POWER so they can remain in power.

Spend money gives them power. Look at the California Correction officer union efforts and what it has down to their paychecks, Benefits and those that they supported.

The more money the government gets the more power they have and then they try and grow that power by getting more money.

[Scissors]

Government NEVER takes the cost effective route. They ALWAYS take the route the provide the politicians in power MORE POWER so they can remain in power.

I know from personal day-to-day experience that this is not always true. We run into all kinds of problems because we aren't spending enough. When you buy the cheapest gear on the market, don't expect it to work right.

In a general sense you are correct, in that the ones in charge will tend to attempt to get as much money as they can and spend it all. But on smaller scales the government often tries to do too much with too little.

[mrvette]

Screw the drug wars, and 2/3 of the prison population......legalize drugs, get the hell over with it already....need send meat wagons through the streets every AM though.....'Bring out your dead'......much cheaper than 50k/year jail fees....just one trip and pick up 50 bodies, so much less for welfare.....

self solving problem.....:seasix::hurray:

[VITE1]

I know from personal day-to-day experience that this is not always true. We run into all kinds of problems because we aren't spending enough. When you buy the cheapest gear on the market, don't expect it to work right.

In a general sense you are correct, in that the ones in charge will tend to attempt to get as much money as they can and spend it all. But on smaller scales the government often tries to do too much with too little.

Then show me how is is shrinking? Buying stuff cheep is not saving money. Its just following a set of rules so no one gets in trouble.

Saving money by buyinghcheep toilet paper for the inmate while the Correction officer union pushes forThougher laws so MORE UNION employees can be hired is not saving. It is just a process to Cover the asses of the asswipes in power.

It like the Teachers Union compalining they can't get supplies since they dont havve money yet the state spends billion on the managment staffing.

[69camfrk]

Screw the drug wars, and 2/3 of the prison population......legalize drugs, get the hell over with it already....need send meat wagons through the streets every AM though.....'Bring out your dead'......much cheaper than 50k/year jail fees....just one trip and pick up 50 bodies, so much less for welfare.....

self solving problem.....:seasix::hurray:

:iagree:Yup!

[mrvette]

:iagree:Yup!

Damn straight, I been inside the MAX wards some 30 years ago, doing security work ATTICA, WALPOLE, LORTON, N. Mexico, doing security work in the hallways with the inmates....

every one, except maybe ONE, was a animal, and needed out back and a ten cent bullet DONE.....

:seasix::kimblair:

[Craig]

I just got an email to price adding a separate kosher area to the kitchen...

[MrPeabody]

I just got an email to price adding a separate kosher area to the kitchen...

So it's a white collar prison?:lol:

[Craig]

So it's a white collar prison?:lol:

Strangely no, it's an ICE...I guess Southern Cali deports a lot of Israelis...