For Profit Prisons Can Sue States for Not Making Enough Criminals

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Boink

The prison-industrial complex is so out of control that private prisons have the sheer audacity to order states to keep beds full or face their wrath with stiff financial penalties, according to reports. Private prisons in some states have language in their contracts that state if they fall below a certain percentage of capacity that the states must pay the private prisons millions of dollars, lest they face a lawsuit for millions more.

And guess what? The private prisons, which are holding cash-starved states hostage, are getting away with it, says advocacy group, In the Public Interest.

In the Public Interest has reviewed more than 60 contracts between private prison companies and state and local governments across the country, and found language mentioning “quotas” for prisoners in nearly two-thirds of those contracts reviewed. Those quotas can range from a mandatory occupancy of, for example, 70 percent occupancy in California to up to 100 percent in some prisons in Arizona.

It is very interesting and telling that so few major national news organization are willing to report on the monstrous, ravenous and criminal system that is devouring hundreds of thousands of black and brown boys. Even those who do not subscribe to conspiracy theories have looked askance at this shocking report.

Welcome to the greatest manifestation of modern-day slavery, ladies and gentlemen.

One of those private prisons, The Corrections Corporation of America, made an offer last year to the governors of 48 states to operate their prisons on 20-year contracts, according to In the Public Interest.

What makes these deals so odious and unscrupulous? Take a look:

1) The offer included a demand that those prisons remain 90 percent full for the duration of the operating agreement. You know what that means: if there are not enough prisoners then there will be an unspoken push for police to arrest more people and to have the courts send more to prison for petty, frivolous and nonviolent crimes. There will also be a “nudge” for judges to hand down longer or maximum sentences to satisfy this “quota.”

2) Private prison companies have also backed measures such as “three-strike” laws to maintain high prison occupancy.

3) When the crime rate drops so low that the occupancy requirements can’t be met, taxpayers are left footing the bill for unused facilities.

The report found that 41 of 62 contracts reviewed contained occupancy requirements, with the highest occupancy rates found in Arizona, Oklahoma and Virginia.

In Colorado, Democratic Gov. John Hinklooper agreed to close down five state-run prisons and instead send inmates to CCA’s three corrections facilities. That cost taxpayers at least $2 million to maintain the unused facilities.

It is getting more difficult to rationalize the societal cost of keeping prisons full just to satisfy private investors who treat prisoners as commodity and cattle .

**daedalus**

And for some borderline insane reason, people DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS!

WTF, America? WTF?

**whembly**

Seriously... abolish all private prisons.

The public should never abidcate meting out punishment.

**TheCustomLime**

daedalus wrote:
And for some borderline insane reason, people DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS!

WTF, America? WTF?

Out of sight, out of mind.

**Jihadin**

I'm under the impression the current prison pop was to huge?

Who are to be the Contract Oversight? Someone who's fimilar on how to do it I hope.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Seriously... abolish all private prisons.

So much this, yes. For-profit prisons are an inherently corrupt idea that should have never come to pass.

**Cheesecat**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
Seriously... abolish all private prisons.

So much this, yes. For-profit prisons are an inherently corrupt idea that should have never come to pass.

I agree with whembly too.

**kronk**

daedalus wrote:
And for some borderline insane reason, people DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS!

WTF, America? WTF?

Agreed. Sickening.

Abolish them, as Whembly said.

**sebster**

As a term in a contract its pretty standard - the company is signing up to administer a prison and will be paid per prisoner put through the system, and it wants to be financially exposed protected in the event that the state decides to start putting its prisoners elsewhere (building its own prisons, or contracting out to another company).

You see the same kind of terms in contracts whenever one company is providing a service to another. In most private funded government facilities you'll see similar kinds of clauses - when a private interest builds a road with a toll booth there will frequently be a contract clause where government will guarantee a certain number of users or it will stump up the difference, and power utilities will include similar deals with the amount of consumption they guarantee. And it exists in the private sector as well, if a Computer game company signs an exclusive deal with a soon to be released console, the contract will likely have a clause that says 'you have to sell x consoles to give us enough target audience, or else you have to compensate us for the lost sales as a result of your small market base'.

Then there's all the stuff about about 'omg if the state isn't going to meet its quota of in-mates then it will pay fines' which is just silly. First up, government isn't a hive mind - the idea that what is good for government bottom line automatically flow through all levels of government and incenitivise everyone from legislators down to beat police is just silly. An officer won't be more likely to make an arrest because government is facing a bill for a shortage of prisoners in a private jail. And more than that, there isn't an incentive there anyway - this clause is a requirement to pay money to compensate for money that would have been paid if the prison population had been higher - in other words, because government is only paying 800 million for it's prison population instead of the expected 900 million, then it must pay 50 million more to compensate - meeting the target would still be a net loss.

I mean, on the greater issue of private prisons I'm like most people and think they're just a terrible idea - but that doesn't mean there's really very much to this particular article.

**daedalus**

Isn't your entire continent a prison?

**timetowaste85**

Well, this sounds like the worst idea in a history of bad ideas. Was George Bush involved, somehow?

**motyak**

daedalus wrote:
Isn't your entire continent a prison?

Was a prison. Now it's a Thunderdome.

**sebster**

daedalus wrote:
Isn't your entire continent a prison?

You know the reason they started shipping convicts to Australia was because the previous dumping ground was no longer available after they had themselves a War of Independence.

**LordofHats**

Maybe they decided bribing judges wasn't bringing in enough money anymore?

**Ouze**

sebster wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Isn't your entire continent a prison?

You know the reason they started shipping convicts to Australia was because the previous dumping ground was no longer available after they had themselves a War of Independence.

Today I learned.

**daedalus**

sebster wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Isn't your entire continent a prison?

You know the reason they started shipping convicts to Australia was because the previous dumping ground was no longer available after they had themselves a War of Independence.

Shh. They're still sore about that...

**Howard A Treesong**

I've read accounts of people going to prison for something minor, and then getting charged for drug possession and fighting with guards while in prison and being slammed with the three strikes rule keeping them in forever. That should be a scandal, that prisons have such a clear conflict of interest in keeping inmates in that they are allowed to do this.

**Jihadin**

I have a serious dislike for Contractors and was damn near unmerciful as Contract Oversight. Then when I received their Statement of Work...I earned my place in the Pantheon of the Dark Gods

**Peregrine**

sebster wrote:
An officer won't be more likely to make an arrest because government is facing a bill for a shortage of prisoners in a private jail.

Really? Maybe that might be true in more sensible countries, but we already have a major problem with police abuses and "tough on crime" policies designed to create permanent prisoners over trivial offenses. The arresting officer might not have much to do with it, but the rest of the system sure could. It wouldn't even need to be anything explicit, just a policy handed down that frames everything in terms of "being tougher on crime" or whatever and pressures everyone involved to make sure people end up in prison. Can that reverse an obvious not-guilty verdict? No, but it could be a big influence on deciding which cases to prosecute and which to drop, how many plea bargains to offer, how harsh to be in sentencing, etc.

**Jehan-reznor**

War on drugs, War on crime, next war on Citizens! just woaw

**LuciusAR**

This sort of stuff scares the hell out me. I'm generally all for private enterprise and the free market but there are some areas the private sector should not be allowed anywhere near. Law and Order is one of them.

I used to think the UK would never allow such things but it's coming to pass here as well.

**sebster**

Peregrine wrote:
Really? Maybe that might be true in more sensible countries, but we already have a major problem with police abuses and "tough on crime" policies designed to create permanent prisoners over trivial offenses. The arresting officer might not have much to do with it, but the rest of the system sure could. It wouldn't even need to be anything explicit, just a policy handed down that frames everything in terms of "being tougher on crime" or whatever and pressures everyone involved to make sure people end up in prison. Can that reverse an obvious not-guilty verdict? No, but it could be a big influence on deciding which cases to prosecute and which to drop, how many plea bargains to offer, how harsh to be in sentencing, etc.

Sure, there is a huge problem with 'tough on crime' rhetoric flowing through the system to produce a lot of injustice. That's true everywhere, but is especially bad in the US where so many judges are elected in to office, and so have political considerations and not simple legal ones. But that's an institutional, cultural impact, the cost of a cause in a contract just doesn't flow through the system like that.

And to repeat my point, while this additional cost is incurred for not having enough prisoners sent to these private contractors, remember that is a compensatory amount for the state paying much less in first place. That is, because there was only 5,000 prisoners instead of the expected 6,000, the state only paid 800 million instead of 900 million, so the state had to pay another 50 million penalty (or whatever the numbers are). The point is that its a compensation payment for lost income, ie for the state having paid less money than expected in the first place. So the compensation payment can't ever be greater than the overall reduction in prisoner numbers, and so if there was an incentive to the state to reduce the cost of the system, that incentive would always be for less prisoners, not more.

**Frazzled**

daedalus wrote:
And for some borderline insane reason, people DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS!

WTF, America? WTF?

A take or pay prison contract? I love it. Someone arranged construction financing for a prison. Mayhaps they are even MLPs. I light up my cigar with a $100 in your honor.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Isn't your entire continent a prison?

You know the reason they started shipping convicts to Australia was because the previous dumping ground was no longer available after they had themselves a War of Independence.

True fact there. Also explains why Australia and Texas are similar deathworlds. Neither has anything on New Mexico though. The Spazz Emprah trains Sardaukar there.

Yea I'm not seeing the hostility here to the contracts. If there aren't enough prisoners more can be transferred in.
If there is objection to it and no need just cancel the contract per the usual cancellation terms. No need to get your panties in a bind about it. .

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
I've read accounts of people going to prison for something minor, and then getting charged for drug possession and fighting with guards while in prison and being slammed with the three strikes rule keeping them in forever. That should be a scandal, that prisons have such a clear conflict of interest in keeping inmates in that they are allowed to do this.

Derp, thats any prison. If you pick a fight with a prison guard in a British prison, its far worse. They make you eat haggis.
Clearly this has no impact upon the Scots, so they are forced to listen to Celine Dion.

**Dreadclaw69**

There are certain functions that the state should always be responsible for, and not contract out. This shows that prisons, as a part of the justice system, should not be a private venture.

**Frazzled**

Why?

**A Town Called Malus**

Frazzled wrote:
Why?

Because human beings are not meant to be used as a commodity to make profit. You had that whole civil war thing to solve that. You were there, remember

**Frazzled**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Why?

Because human beings are not meant to be used as a commodity to make profit. You had that whole civil war thing to solve that. You were there, remember

Its a simple service contract, easily cancellable, no different then any other service contract. You must think governments have no contracts for services ever. This is ignorance of high order.

**Ouze**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
There are certain functions that the state should always be responsible for, and not contract out. This shows that prisons, as a part of the justice system, should not be a private venture.

While I wholly agree with this line of thinking; it also should be mentioned we're never going to get Robocop with this mindset.

**motyak**

Ouze wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
There are certain functions that the state should always be responsible for, and not contract out. This shows that prisons, as a part of the justice system, should not be a private venture.

While I wholly agree with this line of thinking; it also should be mentioned we're never going to get Robocop with this mindset.

And that would be a crime far greater than some mere moral issues.

**d-usa**

I also think that for-profit prisons are stupid.

But I don't think that states are going to pay X in OT for cops, X in additional Jail Cost, X in additional cost for having a trial, X in additional costs to transport prisoners just so that they can save 1/2X by not being short prisoners later. I'm also not sure that your city/county departments are really going to give a feth that the state might have to pay a penalty.