Lock "Em Up: US Prison System Considerations

[HairOfTheDog]

Carried over from the "Pot Criminalization" thread for specific discussion.

Kenny Powers wrote:
The prison system is not controlled by the government but by the private sector. Big, powerful, influential corporations. Decriminalization of pot would put a huge dent on their business. They get paid per inmate, and they want the cash. They control the system now and won't allow change. Business is thriving... the government spends more on prisoners than on education, and the future is bright.

@Shitstorm brought up the issue of private prisons in another thread awhile back too.

I was pretty ignorant about the extent to which private sector prisons are being used and checked it out a bit. I would argue that the government still generally controls the prison system, but the private sector is growing and now houses 16.5% of federal prisoners and about 7% of state prisoners. The vast majority of prisoners still remain in government run facilities.

These statistics blew me away:

- More than 2.3 million people are locked up in the US.
- The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
- One out of 100 American adults is behind bars – while a stunning one out of 32 is on probation, parole or in prison.
- The US prison system is a $74 billion a year industry.
- More than 800,000 people in the US are employed in the prison industry.
- 26 jobs are created for every new 100 prisoners.

Some of the potential effects of a growing private prison sector actually scare me. They do indeed get paid by the head and the two largest players in the industry (CCA and GEO Corp) are doing big business running prisons with non-union personnel; $2.9 billion in combined revenue for 2010.

They claim to be cheaper to run than the government-run prisons, but that's being disputed now with some financial audits and reports showing that there is marginal difference in the true cost to the tax payers as compared to government run prisons.

The private facilities don't want to take high maintenance prisoners who require more monitoring and/or healthcare. They have a vested interest in keeping cells full and, according to reports, have been lobbying for policies that promote harsher laws and longer sentences (though they claim they are just filling an existing overflow need and dedicated to lawfulness).

Who are the preferred prisoners for adult private prisons? Yep, those arrested for marijuana possession and those being detained for immigration violations; typically, not violent and healthier (thus, cheaper to house).

So, I'd agree from a business perspective that the private sector corporations have an incentive to not want marijuana possession decriminalized. The number of possession arrests is staggering and keeps cells filled with the preferred prisoner types. But, I'm not sure how much power the CCA and GEO Corp really have when it comes to lobbying for policies that lead to higher rates of incarceration; couldn't find any relevant data.

I'm also not sure if the private sector will continue to expand (at least at the same rate) given some of the problems its experienced with security breaches, escapes, and the bribing of judges in the "cash for kids" private juvenile facility scandal. Private prisons may also appear less attractive if ongoing research concludes that many of them are no cheaper for the government / tax payers considering the problems that routinely arise and have to be addressed due to lower levels of security and lesser-trained staff.

Is there a realistic concern that laws and sentences are intentionally overly harsh for the purpose of incarcerating more people (and for longer) in order to fuel the prison system business?

References:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44762286/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whi...14467.html
Bureau of Justice Statistics: Corrections:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=1

[Duchess]

It is astounding to me that 1 out of 32 people is in trouble with the law in some manner. Holy Moly.

[IMaDick]

At times Hot D a little bit of detached thinking comes in handy, when you speak of lobbying for longer sentences how far back did you go?

Did you go back to the three strikes law?

when wondering about the effects of lobbying have you considered the end result of more police on the street?

At some point it all connects and it will always end up in a correctional institution or in a regional jail for those housed for a year or less, it's not just the big super max prisons which are coming under private control.

[IMaDick]

By the way, More police on the street for 1 year could equate to many more people being in prison for the next 10 years, the multiples are staggering when you use the number of new police officers that have been hired say in the last 8 years.

just a little compost to help fertilize the brain.

[ramseycat]

It is astounding to me that 1 out of 32 people is in trouble with the law in some manner. Holy Moly.

I am NOT that one person. I swear. It wasn't me!!

[HairOfTheDog]

just a little compost to help fertilize the brain.

Thank you, Dick. I can always count on you to dump some compost.

This is a discussion/exchange thread; I'm not an expert on the subject and I've got time restraints. I've done some basic research and posed a question to learn what others know and/or to get their opinions as to:
Is there a realistic concern that laws and sentences are intentionally overly harsh for the purpose of incarcerating more people (and for longer) in order to fuel the prison system business?
If you'd like to provide the answers to the questions you posed to me and tie them into an opinion/answer to this question, I am (as always) anxious to hear what you think, you shitbird.

[Duchess]

I'll probably be the first & only one to say that I know nothing about this topic.

[HairOfTheDog]

I'll probably be the first & only one to say that I know nothing about this topic.

I didn't know much about it either til a couple of Mock posters brought it up in relation to other topics. The "1 of 32" in trouble with the law suprised me too.

I'm interested to hear whether others know or think it's possible that some people are being jailed to feed an industry, basically. Troubling possibility.

[Maggot]

I've thought about privitized prisons and believe that they will continue to grow as other countries may want 'their" prisoners held here. If they are not already. When you really think about it the government has enough sway to toss anyone in jail. The watchdogs can be bought or at least asked to look away. I am not a consiracy kinda person but it really is a very fine line today.
If someone from the past ever came into the future they would not believe what a regular person could get tossed in jail for today. Going to jail for having an ounce of weed, even in a 3^rd strike scenario is just nuts. It does not rehabilitate or stop them from smoking it when they get out.
Prisons are wrong today, they do not rehabilite a person, what it does is show them how to be better criminals with an attitude.

[Maggot]

Yes, it is a business and people are greedy. Who knows what can go on behind the walls of a private prison. Wasn't there a case not so long ago where some judge was tossing kids 10-16 into a private detention area and getting kickbacks?

[IMaDick]

just a little compost to help fertilize the brain.

Thank you, Dick. I can always count on you to dump some compost.

This is a discussion/exchange thread; I'm not an expert on the subject and I've got time restraints. I've done some basic research and posed a question to learn what others know and/or to get their opinions as to:
Is there a realistic concern that laws and sentences are intentionally overly harsh for the purpose of incarcerating more people (and for longer) in order to fuel the prison system business?
If you'd like to provide the answers to the questions you posed to me and tie them into an opinion/answer to this question, I am (as always) anxious to hear what you think, you shitbird.

It's obvious that people aren't being thrown in jail just to bolster the privatized prisons, but the laws are being written to make it harder for people to stay out of trouble.

Tie it altogether with the anti gun legislation as well as the war on drugs as well as homeland security and it's a receipt to contain a people who by nature desire freedom.

Felons can't vote for a certian amount of time, and they lose their right to bear arms, they also lose public respect as well as personal choices for success.



but being done as it is it also generates a lot of agreement from those very same people who desire freedom by making others just like them into criminals.

people are not very bright sometimes.

[FAHQTOO]

I'll probably be the first & only one to say that I know nothing about this topic.

As usual...you have a clueless friend, and that would be me. I'll think of this post if I ever have to go to the pokey.

[HairOfTheDog]

Yes, it is a business and people are greedy. Who knows what can go on behind the walls of a private prison. Wasn't there a case not so long ago where some judge was tossing kids 10-16 into a private detention area and getting kickbacks?

Yep. Here's the overview from Wikipedia:

The "Kids for cash" scandal unfolded in 2008 over judicial kickbacks at the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Two judges, President Judge Mark Ciavarella and Senior Judge Michael Conahan, were accused of accepting money from Robert Mericle, builder of two private, for-profit juvenile facilities, in return for contracting with the facilities and imposing harsh sentences on juveniles brought before their courts in order to ensure that the detention centers would be utilized.[1][2] Ciavarella and Conahan pleaded guilty on February 13, 2009, pursuant to a plea agreement, to federal charges of honest services fraud and conspiracy to defraud the United States (failing to report income to the Internal Revenue Service, known as tax evasion) in connection with receiving $2.6 million in payments from managers at PA Child Care in Pittston Township and its sister company Western PA Child Care in Butler County.[3][4] The plea agreement was later voided by a federal judge, who was dissatisfied with the post-plea conduct of the defendants, and the two judges charged subsequently withdrew their guilty pleas, raising the possibility of a criminal trial.[5]

A federal grand jury in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania returned a 48 count indictment[6] against Ciavarella and Conahan including racketeering, fraud, money laundering, extortion, bribery and federal tax violations on September 9, 2009.[7][8] Conahan entered a revised guilty plea to one count of racketeering conspiracy in July 2010.[9] In a verdict reached at the conclusion of a jury trial, Ciavarella was convicted February 18, 2011 on 12 of the 39 counts he faced.[10][11]

Following the original plea agreement, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered an investigation of the cases handled by the judges and following its outcome overturned several hundred convictions of youths in Luzerne County.[12] The Juvenile Law Center filed a class action lawsuit against the judges and numerous other parties, and the state legislature created a commission to investigate the wide-ranging juvenile justice problems in the county.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

[Duchess]

As usual...you have a clueless friend, and that would be me. I'll think of this post if I ever have to go to the pokey.

We don't live the kind of life that would educate us in this type of thing & speaking only for myself, this isn't the kind of thing I read about or even have any interest in knowing about. I smoke pot, that's about the extent of my law breaking ways.

[HairOfTheDog]

It's obvious that people aren't being thrown in jail just to bolster the privatized prisons, but the laws are being written to make it harder for people to stay out of trouble.

Thanks, Dick.

If I understand you correctly, you think that the harshness of laws has nothing to do with the private prison corporations and that private prisons are just the solution to overcrowding at governmental facilities (whether they be Fed, State or local).

On a related note: today the Supreme Court ruled against the State of Arizona's appeal regarding its immigration laws. They ruled that the federal law and the Fed's constitutional oversight of immigration supercedes that of the state. While the Supreme Court will still allow Arizona LE to check immigration status if someone is arrested for a crime, the state of Arizona cannot:

• Authorize police to arrest illegal immigrants without warrant where "probable cause" exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country.

• Make it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification.

• Forbid those not authorized for employment in the United States to apply, solicit or perform work. That would include illegal immigrants standing in a parking lot who "gesture or nod" their willingness to be employed.

This will result in fewer immigration arrests than if SB1070 had been upheld, of course, and less revenue for private detention centers. CCA was present during the drafting of Arizona's SB1070 Immigration Law and planned to build facilities specifically to accomodate the influx of expected immigrants. This NPR article is interesting, it suggests that prison economics was a major motivator behind Arizona's laws and the CCA lobbyists were influential with Gov. Brewer and others. FWIW.
http://www.npr.org/2010/10/28/130833741/...ration-law

[cladking]

The code of Hamaradi (sp) imposes twelve times the sentence of the "criminal" on the judge if he is found to be tainted or intentionally convicting the innocent for his own reasons.

So far as I'm concerned this is appropriate only in death penalty cases. A judge or prosecutor deserve extremely harsh sentences for willfull misconduct. Generally this means the death penalty.

In this country they get promoted and run for office. They go into private enterprise and run prisons for profit.

We are in a death spiral caused by greed and gross incompetence. The country is run by money very very poorly.

[IMaDick]

It's obvious that people aren't being thrown in jail just to bolster the privatized prisons, but the laws are being written to make it harder for people to stay out of trouble.

Thanks, Dick.

If I understand you correctly, you think that the harshness of laws has nothing to do with the private prison corporations and that private prisons are just the solution to overcrowding at governmental facilities (whether they be Fed, State or local).

On a related note: today the Supreme Court ruled against the State of Arizona's appeal regarding its immigration laws. They ruled that the federal law and the Fed's constitutional oversight of immigration supercedes that of the state. While the Supreme Court will still allow Arizona LE to check immigration status if someone is arrested for a crime, the state of Arizona cannot:

• Authorize police to arrest illegal immigrants without warrant where "probable cause" exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country.

• Make it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification.

• Forbid those not authorized for employment in the United States to apply, solicit or perform work. That would include illegal immigrants standing in a parking lot who "gesture or nod" their willingness to be employed.

This will result in fewer immigration arrests than if SB1070 had been upheld, of course, and less revenue for private detention centers. CCA was present during the drafting of Arizona's SB1070 Immigration Law and planned to build facilities specifically to accomodate the influx of expected immigrants. This NPR article is interesting, it suggests that prison economics was a major motivator behind Arizona's laws and the CCA lobbyists were influential with Gov. Brewer and others. FWIW.
http://www.npr.org/2010/10/28/130833741/...ration-law

Your whole take on the USSC ruling is biased and tainted with liberal bullshit.

The USSC said that those areas that were vacated were an infringement on the federal government.

I found this very interesting and I can see some lawsuits being filed in the near future. My take is that Arizona will turn over to the federal government the illegals they find legally and when they aren't deported as the law requires the state will file suit and win and be allowed to protect it's borders based on the failure of the federal government to do so.

Constitutionally The Federal Government is required to Protect our borders.

Scalia verbally stated. in his dissent.

"Diving into a discussion of current events, Justice Scalia said the president’s enforcement action called into question the majority’s decision that Arizona’s immigration statutes contradict federal law. He said Arizona was justified in pursuing its own efforts to protect its borders because “federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.”

[HairOfTheDog]

Your whole take on the USSC ruling is biased and tainted with liberal bullshit.

The USSC said that those areas that were vacated were an infringement on the federal government.

I found this very interesting and I can see some lawsuits being filed in the near future. My take is that Arizona will turn over to the federal government the illegals they find legally and when they aren't deported as the law requires the state will file suit and win and be allowed to protect it's borders based on the failure of the federal government to do so.

Constitutionally The Federal Government is required to Protect our borders.

Scalia verbally stated. in his dissent.

"Diving into a discussion of current events, Justice Scalia said the president’s enforcement action called into question the majority’s decision that Arizona’s immigration statutes contradict federal law. He said Arizona was justified in pursuing its own efforts to protect its borders because “federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.”

It will be interesting to see what Arizona does next and whether Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana and Utah will again follow Arizona's lead if Az moves forward as you predict.

Between this ruling by the USSC, Obama's announcement to refrain from deporting those who meet certain criteria, and the border-control aspects/problems associated with F&F, bet Romney will be very aggressive on immigration and border control in the October debates.

I agree with you and the states that contend that the federal government is doing an insufficient job with immigration and border control, btw. The immigration laws that exist are not being enforced and the number of people entering the country (and who they are) is thus outta control, literally. While I have no problem with anyone coming here legally according to the guidelines and laws that are already in place, the continued stream of illegal immigrants is draining an already overburdened system, imo. I don't want to see immigration discouraged in any way, just better administered and controlled.

Justice Scalia definitely made his strong feelings regarding states' rights clear yesterday.

In response to the ruling, the Department of Homeland Security rescinded agreements to work with state and local police in Arizona. Federal officials said they were not interested in taking custody of immigrants stopped by police unless those apprehended were convicted criminals or repeat border crossers.

The court's three most conservative justices sharply dissented.

"As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, unless Congress clearly said otherwise. "If securing its territory ... is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/...3284.story

[Jimbone]

Offtopic:

What's crazy to me is how the federal government has basically declared war on a state that decided to protect it's own border. That's what it comes down to, very simply. The federal government is now NOT COOPERATING with Arizona when they detain or inquire about a persons legal immigration status. Does that make sense to anybody?

You want jobs in the country? Support an enormous public works project, and build a 100 foot wall, 50 feet wide, from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico. Two entry points in each state, Texas gets four because of the size of their border. Watch illegal immigration come to a halt.

Ontopic:

With regards to private prisons, and more people being arrested because of the industry... I don't buy it. The volume of kickback cash that would have to be paid to law enforcement, courts, and administration to fund it would destroy the profitability of the private prison industry. Now, could there be judges who could get co-opted to funnel people who come before them? Of course, as we've seen it already happen.

But wide scale arrests to fill up the prisons for a profit motive? Way too expensive... even for corruption.

[HairOfTheDog]

But wide scale arrests to fill up the prisons for a profit motive? Way too expensive... even for corruption.

There are those who believe otherwise and plenty of info (or propaganda?) suggesting that the private sector corporations are steadily gaining more influence and contributing financially to various governmental legislative departments with the profit-motive of harsher and longer sentences. But, I have yet to read anything that proves that assertion.

I hope you're right.