Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: STOP privatization of prisons.

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 11, 2011, 1:49 p.m. EST by Nor (7)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Stop privatization of prisons. Considering the greater number of arrests, this is a relevant topic to escalate. ‎" According to California Prison Focus, "no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens." The figures show that the United States has locked up more people than any other country ... The private contracting of prisoners for work fosters incentives to lock people up. Prisons depend on this income. Corporate stockholders who make money off prisoners' work lobby for longer sentences, in order to expand their workforce." http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8289

105 Comments

105 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Nor (7) 12 years ago

Twenty-five years ago the North Country had two prisons; now it has eighteen correctional facilities, and a nineteenth is under construction. They run the gamut from maximum-security prisons to drug-treatment centers and boot camps. One of the first new facilities to open was Ray Brook, a federal prison that occupies the former Olympic Village at Lake Placid. Other prisons have opened in abandoned factories and sanatoriums. For the most part North Country prisons are tucked away, hidden by trees, nearly invisible amid the vastness and beauty of the Adirondacks. But they have brought profound change. Roughly one out of every twenty people in the North Country is a prisoner. The town of Dannemora now has more inmates than inhabitants.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

What's intereting too is that these tiny towns like Dannemora get to count the prison inmates in their census for apportionment purposes even though none of the inmates can vote.

This gives those tiny upstate towns more political power than they actually have a right to.

http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/counting-on-prisoners-the-use-of-inmates-in-apportionment

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

industrial prisons are byproducts of the trickle down prism

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

End the anti democracy Jim Crow War on Drugs and you reduce prison populations by 50%.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

And then what?

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

Legalization of intoxicant drugs would reduce the cost of the federal government by more than $42-billion a year. The combined states could save another $62 billion or more a year.

Plus, excise and sales taxes on America's $141-billion a year retail intoxicant drug market could bring at least $47 billion a year if taxed at the rate that tobacco and alcohol are taxed.

More than enough savings and revenues to care for the people who get caught up in abuse.

and legalization would put effective adult supervision in between children and drug sales. Unlike today where drug sales are in the hands of addicts and gangsters who have a vested interest in selling to new generations of children. Licensed and regulated adult supervised sales would reduce childhood drug abuse.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

So, you want to exchange one thug drug dealer for another?
How will legalization keep it out of the hands of kids? We have kids selling their prescribed Ritalin on the playground in elementary schools.

What exactly does "care" for abuse mean? Treatment is a billion dollar industry with a focus on the 12 step program. So, what do we know about successful outcomes with those programs? Is anyone tracking those outcomes past three-six months after completion? I haven't seen any.

My last question is about property crimes that occur as a result of addiction. Legalization of drugs is not going to alter any individuals lack of funds. So, should there be stiffer sentencing for property crimes? There seems to be this movement towards less restrictive sentencing for property crimes.

See, I hear quite a bit on the legalization of drugs will solve problems but I do not buy that. When you look at the social history of things like prohibition (and even prostitution) you find that there was no real effort to change anything. The middle class just did not want to see it. Are you so sure that this won't have the same result? You make it legal and then it isn't on the front page of the paper and the money is suddenly shifted from prisons to "treatment". It isn't considered a "problem" anymore?

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

Responsible regulated and licensed adult supervision of sales of not exchanging one thug for another. that is stupid!

There are plenty of science based treatment programs and an understanding of the nature of addiction that you are obviously not educated about.

A legalized system would take much less economic capacity out of poverty oppressed communities leaving more for legitimate economic activity so there would be fewer people dependent on crime for personal sustenance.

What I do know is that the prohibition of drugs is a $141-billion a year tax free black market subsidy program for crime and corruption in America that would be severely reduced if those billions were channeled through legitimate business and industry.

the biggest demand for illegal cop killer guns on our streets is the drug market to protect and enforce the black market. This huge demand keeps guns cheep for all would be criminals seeking to escalate their criminality with deadly force. Put the drug gangs out of business with legalization and the demand for guns is reduced. With a reduced demand there will eventually be fewer guns costing much more making them harder to get for street criminals. The streets of America become safer places for police and us all just as fewer and fewer police officers were killed in the line of duty for the next fifteen years after the end of alcohol prohibition because the demand for guns declined then as well.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

No, it isn't stupid at all. Team A wears suits and has a license to distribute, pays taxes and that makes it more legit?. Profit is still the motive. Dealers don't make money from those that don't use. The industry just changes hands. There will always be someone available to sell it for a cheaper price to avoid taxes. We cannot pretend that this won't happen. It surely will. Hell, how much product falls off the backs of trucks currently for ...clothing or shoes or any number of items?

Oh, I know that there are other programs out there. What I do not understand is why they aren't being used or promoted. If you send someone to prison now and there is to be some type of focus on rehabilitation why are those programs not being used? Because if you cannot use it now while you have people in custody and in one place, how the hell are you going to pull that off when they are not in custody?

I can see how legalizing drugs is going to make people turn their assault rifles. Have any guns, will steal. Like so: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-01/us/missing.guns.report_1_gun-control-advocacy-group-missing-guns-gun-industry?_s=PM:US

You see, I could be in favor of decriminalization of select drugs. But, do not tell me that this is the cure all. I'm going to tell you what will happen, the absolute least that can be done. I'm going to need a bit more of a plan before I stand behind it.

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

You obviously know it all and I could never tell you anything. So I won't try. Your paranoid cynicism is all the information that you will ever require.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I have read what you have written elsewhere and thought that we were having a discussion on these issues. Good discussions seem so rare here.

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

You cannot see a distinction between responsible licensed adult supervision including doctors, pharmacists and other medical professions that would control sales in a legal regime and the addicts and gangsters who lawlessly control drug sales today.

Decriminalization means better control rather than the criminal anarchy of today.

Consider street crime. Most street crime is committed by a very small group of addicts today who must often come up with a hundred dollars a day or more to feed their habit. If these people were provided a dispensary alternative subsidized by taxes on all drug sales that gave them a safe alternative and exposure to medial help and programs in exchange for their not committing crime t subsidize their addiction most would accept this. this is a proven fact from successful programs in Europe that have reduced crime and addiction by simply providing prescribed heroin to hard core addicts. This includes reducing the addict's dependence on selling drugs to new young users resulting in fewer young people being exposed to drugs in the first place.

One of the main supporters of Alcohol prohibition was also one of the main supporters of ending alcohol prohibition. A Republican woman who came to see that under prohibition gangsters were happy to sell to kids and use kids to sell and transport. But prior to prohibition, when alcohol was legal, the responsible members of the community who ran the taverns refused to sell to kids.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

I can see a distinction. I just cannot see that in the US at this time. I am going to tell you why. We are currently short over 200 medications in the US that are used in hospitals for everything from cancer to anesthesia. This is due, primarily, to pharmaceutical companies that do not find these drugs profitable. So, in a nutshell, we are just out or people have to move to those drugs that are higher priced (if available). You can't force the companies to make them and do we really want to do that?

Then there is this: http://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/

We are talking about a current health care system where nursing homes receive tax dollars but refuse to take care of the people properly because they cannot make a profit. I am not paranoid, but I am cynical.

There are several differences between Europe and the States. Well, first, let me say that the US should have had in place, fully implemented at least 30 years ago ANY type of needle exchange program, and I am in favor of safe injection sites. I would back that in a quick minute.

There is a distinction between soft and hard drugs. Their stance is harm reduction and they will nail you for trafficking or dealing. So, our questions are then, are we decriminalizing drugs and embracing harm reduction with coffee shops where you can buy a gram of marijuana/hash for "personal use" or are we going to legalize it, produce it for fun and profit, tax the bejeezes out of it with rehabilitation or harm reduction as a by product? Like I said, I am not against it but I need to see a well developed course of action.

When I read through the whole shpiel of reformers, I am most impressed by what was not done. The reformers were never about actual reform. In some places the bars just morphed for all outward appearances and carried on. The middle class wanted to walk down the street and pretend that none of this existed. This is true even when you look at how prostitution was handled then (otherwise they would have focused on poverty). It is also true when you look at cities and towns that come out with laws towards homeless people today. What I don't want to happen is that drugs are decriminalized and this population of people are then just thrown under a rug with more of the same. Out of sight out of mind.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

aahpat - you talked to your local drug dealer recently. It may not be exchanging one thug for another, just the product being pushed by the thug that was there before - that now being meth, etc.

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

I understand the modern history of drug use and I know that prior to the War on Drugs meth was considered the ugliest of drugs to be hated and feared. Then most people could simply get less dangerous pep pills if they wanted that. Often from their doctors who understood that they were better at educating people about safe use than street dealers were.

When the Drug War was started pep pill disappeared. Within three years the Mafia saw the vacuum in the market and started making meth to fill the void. So if the drug war had never started people would not have been introduced to meth.

Every escalation of the Drug War has been responded to by gangsters with more dangerous and more widely distributed drugs. Supply demand economics.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Well maybe. Let's start at the bottom of your post. Supply demand economics is a very simple explanation for how the world works. There are a lot of other factors involved. Sometimes there is a supply and no demand so you either change products (the new Coke) or you change the demand (ex:TV ads). Either way it is manipulated to maintain the supply-demand theory.

I would question whether the War on Drugs had that much influence on the products available in the market today. I would propose that those would have appeared with or without that program.

It seems that a lot of our problem, is our snap to judgement culture that promotes an idea being dropped into our midst and we all feed on it and think it was surely sent from heaven. It simply becomes the next great thing to come before us. We salivate all over the place just like P's dog.

I am not a scientific expert in this area - but I can follow a pretty logical continuim. (w\ere is spelcheck when you ned it). I have an employee that messed around with mj until someone offered him something a little stronger because mj just wasn't cutting it any more, that little stronger was meth. He fought it for years, but the urge was always there. I really don't think supply was the cause of the escalation and I don't thing that the Drug War impacted the movement from a $20 fix to a $300 one. It seems more likely that the movement was spurred by the rise in profits available in meth as opposed to mj. I would look forward to a day in the not too distant future that an even more potent, addictive, costly drug will replace meth at a price of say $500 per day at a production cost of the same as or less than meth. Then we will be free to legalize meth and turn our fight to that new scourge.

I have watched a friend destroy his life by steriod use all for the single purpose of "body improvement". First child born with very severe birth defects, now no more children ever, etc.

Ran out of time to ramble. Gotta have an Oreo Cookie - I am hooked on those.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

Your speculating and theorizing.

I base my assertions on history, science and documented reality.

I can tell from your post that you have no scientific knowledge of addiction.

You can find the American society of Addiction Medicine definition here: www.asam.org/DefainitionofAddiction-LongVersion.html

Here is a Swiss government article about the successes of treating heroin addiction with prescribed heroin: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Archive/Swiss_heroin_model_reporting_benefits.html?cid=5423558

Sugar is an addiction no different from tobacco or heroin.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

I am a recovering addict. Three years and holding - read your history, science and documents, etc, that is your source of learning. Non of that has had a hand in helping me in any way. Thanks anyhow. BUT, I am doing great, never better.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

Good for you. Too bad you don't seem to have learned anything from your experience.

You are supporting exposing new generations of American youth to drugs through continued anarchistic addict and gangster street sales. I want to reduce their exposure to these drugs with responsible regulated, licensed and taxed adult supervision of the sales and distribution. You just say no. I will never comprehend people like you.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

BOO HOO. I'll just go cry in the corner somewhere. And it is too bad isn't it, I am just one of those people who can never learn or at least are TOLD that they can never learn. I would have loved to have had you as a teacher in one of my schools - the youngest kid there would have taught you a valuable lesson about judging others, about turning everything around to "you" and maintaining your hight seat in the room. I have a problem with your reasoning. How can you create a description of me so completely as you do in your post and them state that you will never comprehend a person like you just created. I may be a redneck - but..............

Of course you will never comprehend people like me - you are not me and I am only the person you describe in a few words above.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

"We have kids selling their prescribed Ritalin on the playground in elementary schools."

I disagree that this is a widespread problem but let's suppose it is.

You just described a problem with people abusing not illegal drugs but legal ones.

This proves the thing you argue against - drug prohibition does little to prevent drug use.

What would be the solution to the above scenario? Completely outlaw Ritalin? Ok. Then what about legal opiate pain medication? We have a huge problem with not children but adults abusing Rx opiate pain meds - yet they have legitimate uses, too. Should we completely outlaw opiate pain meds?

Deprive cancer patients and other seriously ill people of pain relief because some people abuse them?

(at least a portion of those abusers are people who once had the drug prescribed for them but were cut off due to superivision of physicians by the DEA - docs have to make treatment decisions based on DEA rules instead of what the patient needs)

And then you'd STILL have what we have now - people who illegally smuggle heroin, opium and then we'll add prescription pain drugs into this country. The Drug War has gone on for more than 30 years and it is a FAILURE.

If legalizing heroin/opiates and cocaine are too scary for you, let's just start with marijuana, legal marijuana would make a nice dent in the excessively high prison population.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

Before I go any further are you wanting decriminalization or legalization?

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Don't count on it putting a dent in the prison population. The dealers on the street are getting out of the marijuana business because there is no longer any money in it. So what do we have to fill our prisons? Meth dealers. How far do we go up the ladder of legalization before we just legalize everything out there.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

Pretty much what aahpat is telling you.

People "abused" methaphetamine when it was a prescription drug. Now the only Rx form it is available in is Ritalin because of over-regulation. So it is a choice of black-market Ritalin or street-lab meth for those who want to abuse.

Human beings seek altered states of consciousness. It seems to be an innate drive, trying to outlaw it is almost like trying to outlaw sex. Yes, I won't argue that it is as strong a drive as sex or eating but it seems to exist universally throughout time and across cultures.

We are over-regulating something that human beings continue to do regardless of what the law is.

The War on Drugs is a failure.

Why do we still have meth labs and street dealers after more than 30 years of harsh laws and attempts at international interdiction?

Obama says more people dying in Mexico means we're winning the drug war. Do you agree?

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Only if they are the only ones left in Mexico and we are prepared to close its borders with the countries to the south of it, ports and airports, strip search everyone wanting to come into the US. etc etc. It is like declaring the drug war won if the guy from Phoenix in his MiniVan doesn't show up in the south part of town today.

An draconian failure (borrowed that word from post below).

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Just like the control on cigarettes right. It is good to see that we no longer have people under the age of 18 smoking in our community, expect maybe in the park across from the highschool.

Well, at least we don't let the underage smoke in resturants any more.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

Silly argument. No policy is perfect. But legalization is closer to right and would restrict more use than the unfettered anarchy of criminals and addicts selling without any constraints at all.

With tobacco even, since the government has been restricting sales, juvenile use has declined. that was not the case when cigarettes were sold without any restrictions or adult supervision.

When you come up with a prohibition that works as well as adult supervision and democratic institutions of regulation, licensing and taxation let me know. Until then all that prohibition offers is a black market with addicts and gangsters selling on street corners to anyone.

Prohibition is is anarchy.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Let's let the mj issue play our for a while. It may be the best case test of what you are saying. We have taken that first step towards legalization of a controlled drug. This should be given time to prove or disapprove your position.

I do know that the dealers on the streets are saying that there is no money in mj anymore and they now have to turn to meth, etc. This has only escalated the drug abuse problem in my opinion. So the question - How far do we go - is a death producing prescription the final solution.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

Most of the crime and harm comes from the harder drugs. Leaving them illegal simply leaves their danger to children and the community in play. I want to reduce the harms caused by drugs and that means controlling their production and sale. Not leaving it in the hands of gangsters, predators and social misfits.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Agreed, most of the crime and harm comes from the harder drugs TODAY, but what about tomorrow.

Can we really assume that if we legalize all the illegal drugs on the market today, that some evil chemist in a lab somewhere, or maybe my grandma with all of her concotions won't come with another one, even more potent and deadly, and the whole thing starts over again. Do we then legalize that one. The chemist goes back to work (a very nieve assumption on my part because I know he never quit working). His new drug will be on the streets the next day.

We all have ideas on this. Can anyone see further than their own argument to any type of consensus.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

Human beings have been using drugs for thousands of years. So long that it is part of our genetic structure. People will always find new ways to intoxicate.

The issue is prohibition as a way to stop people from doing what is in the genetic makeup to do. On the one hand prohibition does not stop people. On the other prohibition provides a high risk high reward market with unnaturally high profits that encourage innovation and increased production/sales. Prohibition also subsidizes criminal enterprise making it more profitable and encouraging its growth.

Prohibition also feeds a prison industrial complex that siphons billions of dollars that could be going to rehab instead into warehouses of disease and corruption.

And prohibition removes tens of thousands of Americans from the democratic process each year with criminal disenfranchisement. Putting them into prisons in isolated white conservative districts that then become politically corrupt "safe districts" with their artificially inflated populations where the mostly minority prison populations have no right to vote for the mostly white political structure.

And prohibition subsidizes violence on American streets by creating a high demand for cop killer guns. Supplying that high demand puts more guns on the streets. More guns means their prices go down making them more available for all criminals.

America today spends more than $100 billion a year between the fed and combined states for prisons and police to enforce prohibition. An amount that is breaking many state budgets. All to prohibit the activities of fewer than 1-million hard core addicts. And it fails completely to stop or even to mitigate them.

The $100 billion put instead into rehab, maintenance and mitigation programs would reduce the number of addicts far more successfully. Putting incurable addicts into maintenance programs that get them our of selling to new generations reduces the number of new addicts in the community.

This is proven science. And fact based concepts.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

I don't doubt your science or your facts. I just think there are holes in the entire proposition that must be addressed. One issue I have with your science is this:

How does this cut down on the prison population etc. A $300 per day drug habit whether it is legal or illegal it not within reach of most addicts. Therefore they continue to feed their addiction with robbery etc. which simply presents the same problem that we face today. i don't see us moving into the next step of legalizing robbery to reduce the prison population. In today's society we consider drug use and robbery to both be crimes - you are proposing that we only address one issue (drug use) make it legal by control and you still leave the robbery (how to pay to support the addiction) as an illegal act. Are you suggesting that this be corrected by giving the drug to the addict?? I simply cannot follow you arguments through to a logical final conclusion, though I agree that a lot of your arguments have validity.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

i like that. but i'd also add the Jim crow college expenses too

[-] 2 points by Nor (7) 12 years ago

"In 1991, as New York struggled to emerge from a recession, Governor Cuomo "sold" Attica prison to the corporation for $200 million and used the money to fill gaps in the state budget. In order to buy the prison, the corporation had to issue more bonds. The entire transaction could eventually cost New York State about $700 million." http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/12/the-prison-industrial-complex/4669/

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 11 years ago

The kochs and their ilk have tried to privatize everything to make profits -
prisons schools military social security


they now own the US House of representatives & many Senators - what are we going to do about it ???

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 11 years ago

Great post. The prison system in this country is insane. The way so many people cheer for locked up drug users is also insane.... as they cheer they drink their alcohol and smoke their cigarettes.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

makes me think of China

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 12 years ago

stop the wasteful failed war on drugs and we'll end up having to close prisons.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 12 years ago

more fascists. fascists everywhere in america!!

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

Private prisons are bad but unionized corrections officers with organized lobbies who advocate for the same stuff as the private prison companies are bad, too.

California's prison guards make lots of money, are able to earn six figure salaries with overtime and New York's prison guards aren't far behind them. This isn't a function of privatized prisons.

http://gawker.com/5797381/spoiled-california-prison-guards-have-it-easy

http://capitalresearch.org/2011/09/the-price-of-prison-guard-unions/

The "prison-industrial" complex also creates profits for unions AND for the government.

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

Get rid of private prisons, yes, AND stop imprisoning so many people for so long for non-violent, victimless crimes.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

One can't see inside a private prisons

Emilie Autumn - Miss Lucy Had Some Leeches Lyrics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cni1ZZiow_k

[-] 1 points by stevo (314) 12 years ago

So the people building the prisons, are creating more crime? Kinda like people who build hospitals, are making people sick...so they have to go into the hospitals.....so they can make more money.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

what the hell is wrong with profits?

Dicky and H + KBR made plenty o' profits building showers in Iraq -
and it only cost 13 GI lives. We have so many we don't need.
Did you hear that H is building a new factory -
using prison labor -
to make soylent green -
plenty o' profits!

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

profits are incentives when those incentive are perverse,progress of the nation begins to reverse.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

Yes, private prisons lobby for more draconian laws to improve their bottom line.

http://mycuentame.org/2011/09/07/lobbying-efforts-of-cca-and-geo-continue-to-impact-az/

Conditions at private prisons are measureably worse than they are at govt run prisons.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

Another great site: http://prisonaftershock.com/

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 12 years ago

I agree!

[-] 1 points by Nor (7) 12 years ago

god is superstition.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

This is the latest CCA lawsuit. http://m.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2011/sep/14/inmate-cca-settle-lawsuit-over-violence-idahos-private-prison/

More lawsuits with CCA and GEO and the like are found here: http://www.privateci.org/lawsuits.html

Here is some information the America Legal Exchange Council (ALEC) http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

what web site is this from?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

Yep.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Excuse me. It this just another crackpot California idea, selling the imprisoned to private or public corporations and money making operations.

Either California is all messed up (OK,I know), Nor is all messed up, or I need to spend more time thanking God that I do not live in or even too near California.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

Actually, it is all over the United States.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

And you can back up your statement "it is all over the United States"

Please give me more information, I may have cause to be very mad about this.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

I have provided links above, scroll up and have a look through.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Sorry, I am not into a lot of links. I wan't to know what you think. And you just sent me to a site that basically said that someone wrote a law and that lawmakers voted on it to pass. Someone wrote those links too and you sent me there to vote on them to pass. Sorry - I don't buy this kind of dialog.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

Um.... I'm not sure what world you come from, but you wanted me to back that up and I already have.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

With a lot of help from a link. Now I have to see who's opinion that is and if that person has any credibility to anyone other than yourself. But thanks for the information anyway.

PS - I am from a world far away from yours.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

You were going to have to do that anyway, silly. :)

And I would do the same if you brought me links. So, we might be in at least the same galaxy.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Thanks, I take "silly" as a compliment. Others kinda offend me by using terms like idiot and troll (which I cannot get a clear definition on).

Yeah, you are right, but you know what, I still have a lot of respect for words from a trusted person who sites their references (links). With so much information floating around us, it is good to find a trusted authority to provide a little guidance and advice. Thanks - I will become more trustful of your recommendations because you can talk common sense.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

CCA & GEO run federal prisons & immigration detention centers.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

One piece of information at a time, and my attention span is about to run out here. SO WHAT>>>>>>>

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

You asked her to back up the statement "It is all over the United States"

Federal prisons & immigration detention centers = all over the United States.

Get it now?

Hope that helps.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Big help there. So you want to tie this all into one simple, very simple package for me. Are all CCA and GEO run federal prisons selling prisoners time outside the prison for their own profit as you seem to indicate in this long string of dialog?? A simple question - please a simple answer.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

"Are all CCA and GEO run federal prisons selling prisoners time outside the prison for their own profit"

Who indicated that? Not me. The profit comes from the running of the prison itself. The government pays them to run the prison, at a profit, they profit off of government funding.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

And if the government operates the prison, no one profits right?? and if no one profits, why can the corporation operate the system for less taxpayer dollar than the government?? These kind of explanations just stress my mind to understand.

My reply to that is why don't you go run a prison and forego taking any profit for doing so. And you are that gung-ho, let's just let the government run the prison, you can work there and not share in the profits that the government has to give away in the form of salaries so that they WILL NOT show a profit.

I am all for powertothepeople but if this is what you offer me, I want to reserve a little of that power for myself.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

"why can the corporation operate the system for less taxpayer dollar than the government?? "

Are they? Show me proof that they actually do the job for less.

And also: In the end, if they lobby and win more restrictive laws which bring more prisoners and more prisons, they really aren't doing the job for less anyway, are they?

Yes, public institutions should be run by the government. The government is directly answerable to the taxpayers, the voters. Private institutions are not.

Why is that now a radical idea? the United States operated that way for 100s of years.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

They operated that way until they finally realized that the private sector could do it more economically.

Don't try to use extraneous information to justify your facts. Whether they lobby and whether they win or lose if not an issue in the cost of operating a single prison. We have laws and a justice system that puts a prisoner in a prison - not a lobbist - if they have done something that you don't like-take after them-not the entire system.

And I am sure you have experience with both government and private operation of institutions. Like public schools, hospitals, etc.

I actually do and was willing to go before a House Committee in DC to state my point. That being that the public could do a better job of educating children at the same or lessor cost by giving the responsibility to the people rather than a department in DC. We made our point, the law passed and the people now have control of their school - not the USGovernment. Thank you very much - call be a lobbyist or whatever - but until you have been there and done that please simmer down a little.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

Show me facts and figures. Prove private prisons are more economical.

Their lobbying efforts and their influence on the system are not "extraneous information" but your non-fact based opinions are.

And I don't konw where all you public school bashers on the internet come from. Must be in flyover states with inferior school systems.

I grew up in a suburb of NY with award winning public schools. Our students have the top SAT scores in the nation. We value our public school system and strive to make it better all the time. We don't want it raped for profit by Wall St.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Sorry powertothepeople but you had no reply button on your post below.
Why did you include the paragraph about public school bashers in a reply to my comments? Either you misread what I stated or you have a mindset that put your ideas into the place of mine. For 15 years I worked in a government owned-run school, I testified that the people could do a better job if they owned-control their school and today they do. Then I worked in public schools, private schools, and government owned schools for another 12 years. I have been around the block too - still can't make sense of point #3 in your response to my post - just too far out there.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Thanks GirlFriday for the information. Since you did not answer my question and merely repeated what these three (.gov, .org, and .com) say, I will have to do a lot more research before I can conclude something on my own. Thanks anyway.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

Well sure, definitely. Private corporatism lobbies for stiffer penalties.

What many seem to continually forget is that criminal behavior involves a victim or victims; someone has been unjustly victimized. The extended tolerance has empowered many and we have but two choices: either legitimize low level crime - ignore the cries of the victim - or, create more prisons. The question here is, is corporate control a good idea.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

I have not read or heard any arguments that say corporate control is a better idea than government control or visversa. In my opinion, if private operated prisons provide equal service at an equal or lower cost within existing laws, as a taxpayer - go for it. If there are other issues that enter in, such as for profit use of prisoners outside the prison, these are issues to be dealt with where they exist.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

Many insist on a profound verbiage in separation of Church and State. But as long as our God is to viewed a s a"righteous" god and our laws as a moral "good," then we will never entirely succeed in removing God from the law.

What I am trying to say is that I believe that there is some expectation of a higher standard of government. Corporations are not only oblivious but likewise have no care.

So I don't view privatization of law enforcement in any form as a "good." What they propose is the transformation of an "officer" to security guard.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Thanks for the reply.

I have read through your post several times and I hope I understand what you are saying - if not, please let me know.

P1 Separation of Church and State is pretty evident to me based on the circumstances of the times. I fully interpret the constitution as preventing the State from imposing any Church (State Sponsored) religion upon me or any other citizen. In doing so, it does not intend to impose upon the individual any restrictions on their right to practice their religion, including trying to get candidates elected who reflect their underlying beliefs, morals, or whatever you want to call them. However, in today's society, I do not think the threat is from the government as much as it is from our media, our fellow citizens or any other group opposed to our right to freedom of religion.

My experience has shown somewhat the reverse of this hypothesis. The closer goverment is to the people (local) the more they seem to care - but the further away that caring is centered the less you see of it. This is the basis for movements to abolish the Department of Education etc. based on the fact that they are too far away to really care about anything other than such a big picture that they totally confuse everyone when they do anything that should have any affect at the local level. Perhaps a very good example of this is the current NO-CHILD LEFT BEHIND program. Well intentioned, probably, but not implementable at the local level with the success intended. You just simply cannot "care" from that distance, through that many people, through that many sheets of paper, for each individual that comes under the jurisdiction of the edict. I would much rather have had a local corporation administer that program in my school than DC, and if the truth be told - neither the government nor the corporation. Another example from my experience is the Title I Progam. We were among the first school to write Title I proposals. These proposals were fully based upon the identified needs of the local school as determined by the people working directly with the students. This was a real caring group, by the way. Each year thereafter, the Federal level imposed more and more limitations on how the funds were allocated, what you could do and what you couldn't, labeled a student in a classroom as Title I or not Title I, put a book on the table in that classroom and said "you can read it, but you can't". See the caring had totally removed itself to a level that could not include any caring component in its edicts.

In summary, do I believe that the government should be more caring than any corporation, I sure do. Do I believe it lives up to its responsibility in this area - NO, I do not.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

All I was trying to say is that in reference to our prison systems, I believe that government employees are held to a higher ethics standard than those of a private corporation. There is more control over hiring, training, self policing.

Our perspectives on education might be somewhat different because I live in the country where we are comprised of local community school districts. I do not favor state or federal interference on any level. The problem with taking education dollars is that is has allowed for much that is superfluous. We've borrowed against the promise of dollars to create a more luxurious environment, and then when those dollars dried up, we've been repeatedly stuck with the bill in it's entirety. Nor do I see any need whatsoever for the fed or state to impose requirements as an extension of of a political philosophy for the purpose of acculturation. We will never meet the people who make decisions for us or our children; they will never be members of our community. Since we, in large part, pay the bill we have a right to our autonomy.

But yes I know exactly what you are saying... they are so removed, they don't have a clue. And it needs to stop.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Before we go into this in more detail, please explain the difference between "unjustly victimized" and "justly victimized". Thank you

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

PSSST betuadollar down here Sorry, no reply button on your latest post. Thanks so much for your reply - not that we totally agree, but that is was very understandable. I think we are in full agreement regarding education. We only fool ourselves if we think any dollar from the Federal level has no strings attached or that it could not evaporate overnight. Very, very well stated. Thanks

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

There is a difference in perception. Taxpayers for instance are often viewed as "justly victimized." The drug dealer who gets robbed, the child rapist who gets raped, the child murder who takes a bullet between the eyes... may be viewed as "justly" victimized. Victimization can be justified. I'm not speaking to those crimes. Only those we view as unjust.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Thanks bet. Appreciate the clarification.

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I am all for privatization of prisons if it saves the taxpayer money. I would prefer that we didn't incarcerate so many people, but stupid direct democracy has passed ridiculous laws that have made it impossible for the judges to hand out lenient sentences. So the people wanted to be tough on crime and took it in their ass when half the population was sent to jails and then the people had to pay for it. If we can roll back those stupid direct democracy propositions, I would be very happy. Failing that, we need to curtail the cost of running those prisons. If privatization saves money I am all for it. If not, I am against it. Does anyone know if privatization of prisons saves money or not?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

You're sociopathy is showing again.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Yeah, that's why I must be against the three strikes law passed by collective stupidity of direct democracy. Propositions prove that people are not able to govern themselves. They need educated thoughtful people telling them what to do. The uneducated working class are like animals. If you leave them to govern themselves they will just tear each other apart in morality plays, like the 3 strikes law in California. The sad thing is that such laws hurt them the most.

[-] -1 points by Jimboiam (812) 12 years ago

And you don't think that government run prisons with union labor do not also incentivize people to be imprisoned? What a naive statement. You are only switching out Union leaders and Dem supporters for corporate stockholders. They are both special interests. And America imprisons more people because we enforce our laws, and have a big population. IN other countries with large populations they execute their prisoners or do not divulge the number of them in prison. I.E. Russia and China.

[-] -1 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

That is so preposterous. What a great conspiracy story, though. So.......states sell their prisons to private entities. Then the new owners lobby for more convictions and longer sentences so they can make money off of the cheap prison labor. Yeah, right. Gee, get a freakin life.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

Run a search on the American Legal Exchange Council. Read everything that you can on that group. I don't care if you read left to right or right to left. Also run a search on CCA, you will run into other names as well.

This is faux privatization. As tax payers we WILL still give them money.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

What is your point about the ALEC?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

ALEC writes legislation. I have provided links above. You can check them out.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

So what? There are a lot of people and organizations that write legislation. Geezzzzz, you are finding bogey men where there aren't any.

What the hell is it about OWS that you people are finding all of these conspiracies everywhere?????

This is nothing but fantasy time.....it's really funny to watch...really.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

This isn't hidden knowledge. It isn't about a bogey man, asshole. It's been out in the open for quite some time. Your ignorance is not my problem.

I have a problem with corporations writing legislation and especially legislation that benefits the corporations rather then the people. Further, our criminal justice system should not be for sale.

When we are dealing with "faux privatization" or FOR PROFIT prisons and jails by corporations like GEO and CCA we find that they cut corners in areas that they should not. These result in escapes, inadequate medical/mental health care, underpayed and inadequately trained staff that places the inmates AND the CO's in danger. Further, when you send the inmates out to do work on the grounds then you have created the opportunity for them to make arrangements to pick up dropped off contraband which adds to the risk. You WILL pay for the lawsuits. You just do not realize it.

I haven't even touched on "slave labor" issues that are within these institutions.

[-] -1 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

What a rant. I agree that any company who contracts with any government needs to meet their contractual obligations. If that is a problem, then contract enforcement is the issue.

It's amusing to see such hate for the for profit sector, which is the engine that drives the greatest economy in the world. You won't agree with that statement, but with out the US economic machine of the last 150 years, the whole world would look much more like either a third world country or one that is dominated by a fascist regime from Germany or Japan.

You have no appreciation for the great things that have been done by many people before you. They made you a very cushy place in life.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

But, I don't hate the profit sector.

Oh, I see what the problem is. Remove your head from your ass and THEN read the words on the screen.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

Why not try to build, rather than tear down?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

Did you bring enough fortune cookies for the rest of us?

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

huh?

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

No, it is not so they can make a profit off cheap prison labor, the profit comes from the running of the prison itself.

And CCA and Geo DO lobby for more restrictive laws to create a larger prison population. This is verifiable, I believe links have already been posted.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

but those links are fraudulent and not true. try coming up with something that isn't a stupid conspiracy theory.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

You people come here and post World Net Daily and this is a stupid conspiracy theory?

My god. Here's the blogger who runs "Volokh Conspiracy" who is conservative and actually wants to debunk this as it pertains to Arizona and SB 1070 and he cannot do it. He simply "remains skeptical". Read the article and also the comments there.

http://volokh.com/2010/11/10/private-prison-lobbying-and-arizonas-sb-1070/

And here's a report by the justice policy institute.

http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/gaming_the_system.pdf

In the interests of full disclosure, the funders of JPI's parent organization:

"In 2010, industry funders of the Urban Institute included CIGNA Corporation and Pfizer. Other major donors included the Popplestone Foundation and the Price Family Charitable Fund."

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

What links?

[-] -1 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

what's your point? The guy shouldn't have broken into that home, now should have he? It's a stiff sentence, but he could have avoided it by going into his own home instead of someone else's.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

Where is IronBruce? He just posted on this very topic.