Judge who sold juveniles to jails gets 28 yrs

[Brownshoe]

(09-04-2015, 01:18 PM)Benton Wrote: Usually what happens is for-profit prisons say "if you keep it at X occupancy, we can incarcerate people at Y cost."

Part of where the corps make their money is just like how the hotel industry does. If you've got more cash, you can get nicer stuff. Want smokes, candy bars, a television? Just buy it at incredibly high mark ups. As long as you've got someone putting money in your account.

It's like someone asked "how can we get somebody to pay $4 for a candy bar?" And somebody answered "incarcerate them!"

It's not just that. Private prisons force inmates into cheap labor. The private prisons make contracts with outside businesses to make or do whatever, and they only pay the inmates pennies on the hour. The inmates can be forced to process food, or make things. This gives the private prisons most of their income. That's why private prisons always want the maximum amount of inmates, because they get slave labor from them. That's the scary thing to me is that minor offenders who would normally just get a fine or a very small punishment will get a maximum sentence to get the private prisons slave labor.


As far as I'm aware the only thing state run prisons (in Ohio at least) make is license plates. The inmates in state prisons still work (and still for pennies on the hour, which I have no problem with) mostly on institutional operations. Like cutting the grass, cleaning, making the food, ect ect.

[BmorePat87]

(09-04-2015, 10:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I thought you were in favor of smaller government and less government waste?

People like you are the ones who make privatized prisons more popular.  You claim that government is incompetent and a private business model would be much more efficient.  That would then save the taxpayers money.

Holy shit, people are not black and white on every issue!?!??!

[Benton]

(09-04-2015, 06:00 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It saves the govt money if done correctly, and by that I mean not outsourcing all your jails but some number of beds you know will be filled, which makes govt-run jails more of an overflow to handle variances in the numbers of incarcerated individuals at any time.  Or it would probably be even better to outsource the overflow as private prisons not employing unionized govt workers with pensions have lower labor costs and can adjust many of their costs more easily.

The problem is when you want to set this up and a new prison needs to be BUILT, not you have huge CapEx that has to be billed....a rate that is lower on a per-head basis the more beds you fill, and also what might lead to closing of an older govt-run jail.

(09-06-2015, 09:32 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So private jails are bad because of one corrupt judge and one corrupt jail?  

The issue with jails is that when they are ran by the public they must have Unionized workforce.   Then they have limitations on who can bid on other services.    This drives the prices up.  

bot sure how it's done elsewhere but here they charge you daily for bed, food, and clothing.   Not to mention how Aramark over charges for "luxury" items which the county gets their cut plus gets paid by Aramek for the proviledge to sell.   Plus they take a daily user fee out of the cantine accounts of the prisoners.

Not to say private wouldn't do some of these things but its easier to write tjings like this into the bidding process when contracting for services.

Guard salary is a bit skewed when you look up the average, which is around $37,000 for state guards across the country. It's skewed because just like any company, those at the top make considerably more. And they aren't typically in the union, they're the administration guys.

Starting salary for a guard, depending on state, averages between $19-24,000 per year. Those are the high priced union guys you two are referring to.

I work in a community with two prisons, both state run. One maximum security, one low/medium. Both start their guards at $9.58. That's about the same starting pay at the gas station near one of them (it hires cashiers for $8.50). And used to the guards would decline state insurance as it cost too much.

Anyway, that's part of why there's no cost savings with outsourcing prisons. The bulk of labor cost is in administration, the same guys who authorize and do the support work to make outsourcing possible are the same salaries that make up the bulk of employee pay.

[Benton]

(09-06-2015, 11:04 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: It's not just that. Private prisons force inmates into cheap labor. The private prisons make contracts with outside businesses to make or do whatever, and they only pay the inmates pennies on the hour. The inmates can be forced to process food, or make things. This gives the private prisons most of their income. That's why private prisons always want the maximum amount of inmates, because they get slave labor from them. That's the scary thing to me is that minor offenders who would normally just get a fine or a very small punishment will get a maximum sentence to get the private prisons slave labor.


As far as I'm aware the only thing state run prisons (in Ohio at least) make is license plates. The inmates in state prisons still work (and still for pennies on the hour, which I have no problem with) mostly on institutional operations. Like cutting the grass, cleaning, making the food, ect ect.

It depends.

One of the prisons in my area used to have a fully functioning farm. They made furniture, raised cattle and produce. It was good because it taught them a trade. But the prison lost money on it because of labor costs. You have to pay people with skills more, and it's cheaper to spend  $9 an hour for a guard to stand there than it is to pay someone with an ag degree twice that to stand there guarding and tell the inmates how to run a combine. 

The prisons in my area don't make anything any more, but they are used as municipal labor. They aren't allowed to work on private property, but they do most of the city/county mowing, trash pickup, cleaning and general labor. 

[fredtoast]

(09-06-2015, 11:59 AM)Benton Wrote: It depends.

One of the prisons in my area used to have a fully functioning farm. They made furniture, raised cattle and produce. It was good because it taught them a trade. But the prison lost money on it because of labor costs. You have to pay people with skills more, and it's cheaper to spend  $9 an hour for a guard to stand there than it is to pay someone with an ag degree twice that to stand there guarding and tell the inmates how to run a combine. 

The prisons in my area don't make anything any more, but they are used as municipal labor. They aren't allowed to work on private property, but they do most of the city/county mowing, trash pickup, cleaning and general labor. 

Most States do not allow prisoners to produce products for market because private businesses protested against the unfair competition.  That is what happened here in Tennessee.  Furniture makers complained that it was unfair for them to have to compete against slave labor.

However most of the large prisons have farms where they grow their own food.

I know it is not a very efficient way to create electricity, but I think every prison should have a room with hundreds of stationary bicycles hooked to generators.  Prisoners could then earn "good time" by producing electricity.  They could have it scheduled so that every bike is in use for 16 hours a day.

[Brownshoe]

(09-06-2015, 11:55 AM)Benton Wrote:

Guard salary is a bit skewed when you look up the average, which is around $37,000 for state guards across the country. It's skewed because just like any company, those at the top make considerably more. And they aren't typically in the union, they're the administration guys.

Starting salary for a guard, depending on state, averages between $19-24,000 per year. Those are the high priced union guys you two are referring to.

I work in a community with two prisons, both state run. One maximum security, one low/medium. Both start their guards at $9.58. That's about the same starting pay at the gas station near one of them (it hires cashiers for $8.50). And used to the guards would decline state insurance as it cost too much.

Anyway, that's part of why there's no cost savings with outsourcing prisons. The bulk of labor cost is in administration, the same guys who authorize and do the support work to make outsourcing possible are the same salaries that make up the bulk of employee pay.

holy shit $9.58!? was that back in the late 1980s? In Ohio Correction officers start out at $16.35 for state prisons, or at least that's what it was in 2010 when I started. I wouldn't work at a prison if it started out at $14. I think it's funny that people get angry at state union workers "making too much money". It's like they don't care about the middle class. Everyone who has a high paying job who works for the state isn't in the union. And don't give me that crap about CO's shouldn't make that much money, because that job is a pain in the ass. You have to watch hundreds of murderers and rapists with only one other partner, and the only thing you have is a man down button and a PR 24 (a guard stick). Not to mention you have to go through a crap ton of training. It's not an easy job like most people think it is.

FWIW Ohio privatized their food service for their prisons, and there has been a HUGE decline in quality. The chow service runs slower. The portions are smaller. The inmates are way more unhappy, and that causes more incidents. The private companies employees have been caught bringing stuff into the prison for the inmates more times than I care to remember. There's been multiple reports of maggots in the serving area. Inmates are able to steal the food a lot easier from the private food service making it cost more on the state (the state has to cover the cost on any extra food the private company has to provide). It has been a huge mistake privatizing the food service in the prisons. I can only imagine what it would be like if the whole prison was under their control.

[Benton]

(09-06-2015, 12:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Most States do not allow prisoners to produce products for market because private businesses protested against the unfair competition.  That is what happened here in Tennessee.  Furniture makers complained that it was unfair for them to have to compete against slave labor.

However most of the large prisons have farms where they grow their own food.

I know it is not a very efficient way to create electricity, but I think every prison should have a room with hundreds of stationary bicycles hooked to generators.  Prisoners could then earn "good time" by producing electricity.  They could have it scheduled so that every bike is in use for 16 hours a day.

Beyond the thunderdome. Let the prisoners operate a hog farm. Energy and food.

Bam.

[Brownshoe]

(09-06-2015, 12:40 PM)Benton Wrote: Beyond the thunderdome. Let the prisoners operate a hog farm. Energy and food.

Bam.

That's what they do now. They just have a farm coordinator supervising them.

[Benton]

(09-06-2015, 12:26 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: holy shit $9.58!? was that back in the late 1980s? In Ohio Correction officers start out at $16.35 for state prisons, or at least that's what it was in 2010 when I started. I wouldn't work at a prison if it started out at $14. I think it's funny that people get angry at state union workers "making too much money". It's like they don't care about the middle class. Everyone who has a high paying job who works for the state isn't in the union. And don't give me that crap about CO's shouldn't make that much money, because that job is a pain in the ass. You have to watch hundreds of murderers and rapists with only one other partner, and the only thing you have is a man down button and a PR 24 (a guard stick). Not to mention you have to go through a crap ton of training. It's not an easy job like most people think it is.

FWIW Ohio privatized their food service for their prisons, and there has been a HUGE decline in quality. The chow service runs slower. The portions are smaller. The inmates are way more unhappy, and that causes more incidents. The private companies employees have been caught bringing stuff into the prison for the inmates more times than I care to remember. There's been multiple reports of maggots in the serving area. Inmates are able to steal the food a lot easier from the private food service making it cost more on the state (the state has to cover the cost on any extra food the private company has to provide). It has been a huge mistake privatizing the food service in the prisons. I can only imagine what it would be like if the whole prison was under their control.

That's the rate right now. The sad part is, the jailers who house them during trial are deputies, so they start out around $12-16 per hour in most counties. Same prisoners, worse conditions, so they make $3-7 less.

Ours outsource food services to armark. And I get a letter about once a month from an inmate complaining about rotten food, inedible food, etc. One guy said they had spaghetti food breakfast lunch and dinner for eight straight days. I don't feel sorry the guy, it is prison, but that's a case of somebody just not caring about another human being.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-06-2015, 12:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Most States do not allow prisoners to produce products for market because private businesses protested against the unfair competition.  That is what happened here in Tennessee.  Furniture makers complained that it was unfair for them to have to compete against slave labor.

However most of the large prisons have farms where they grow their own food.

I know it is not a very efficient way to create electricity, but I think every prison should have a room with hundreds of stationary bicycles hooked to generators.  Prisoners could then earn "good time" by producing electricity.  They could have it scheduled so that every bike is in use for 16 hours a day.

i agree they shouldn't be able to go to the open market, but they should be able to produce furniture, etc for the government.  

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 10:32 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: The primary difference here is that I have attempted on various occasions to discuss actual policy with you instead of trade slogans and thinly veiled insults, to absolutely no effect. As a matter of fact, during one particularly embarrassing dialogue, you proudly pronounced that you had "no need to research".

I'll admit that when I'm dealing with somebody who doesn't give a shit about whether or not they know what they're talking about, I tend to stoop to their level. But that's because trying to reach understanding with somebody who has zero interest in learning anything is a complete waste of time, an activity I don't much care for.

In other words, you need to take some "personal responsibility" and recognize that if you do nothing but spit uninformed nonsense at people all day, there's a great chance they're just going to poke fun at you. Or, per the last example, question your mental health.

No, you haven't discussed anything at all really.  All I've seen you do is attack the poster. 

It's either "faux news", "bumper sticker slogans", "echo chamber", and now add "mental health". 

It's not unusual though.  As I said before, liberals are pretty miserable people in general, so personal attacks are not a surprising retaliation. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-08-2015, 02:58 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: No, you haven't discussed anything at all really.  All I've seen you do is attack the poster. 

It's either "faux news", "bumper sticker slogans", "echo chamber", and now add "mental health". 

It's not unusual though.  As I said before, liberals are pretty miserable people in general, so personal attacks are not a surprising retaliation. 

The good news is that you did finally take the initiative to have a cursory glance at Bernie Sanders' policy proposals.

The bad news is that you only did it long enough to copy and paste it onto the board and say "I don't see any details" right above all the details.

The reason all you've seen me do is attack the poster is because all you've seen me do is respond to your blatant, obnoxious insolence, which doesn't deserve much more than a little condescension. The rare times you attempt to make valid points about anything rather than repeating garbage you've heard repeated ad nauseam within your little bubble, I'm always glad to demonstrate on a factual basis why you're wrong.

I'm pretty happy in general, by the way. Thanks for your concern though.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 03:14 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: The good news is that you did finally take the initiative to have a cursory glance at Bernie Sanders' policy proposals.

The bad news is that you only did it long enough to copy and paste it onto the board and say "I don't see any details" right above all the details.

He offered zero specifics.

NONE. 

No way to pay for them.  Didn't submit his ideas to any non-partisan for vetting to determine what their impact on the economy or tax revenue would be.

NOT ONE.

You're welcome to show me that I'm wrong here....I'm sure that you will do so by saying "you're wrong" followed by some idiotic liberal talking point insult, all while claiming that I'm the guy that doesn't read or deal with facts.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-08-2015, 03:20 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: He offered zero specifics.

NONE. 

No way to pay for them.  Didn't submit his ideas to any non-partisan for vetting to determine what their impact on the economy or tax revenue would be.

NOT ONE.

You're welcome to show me that I'm wrong here....I'm sure that you will do so by saying "you're wrong" followed by some idiotic liberal talking point insult, all while claiming that I'm the guy that doesn't read or deal with facts.

He did offer specifics, though. He just didn't give you specifics you want to hear.

You want specifics that guarantee an immediate offset of costs; Sanders hasn't claimed he'd do this. You want him to submit his ideas to corporate-financed think-tanks; sorry, but he isn't interested in having the Heritage Foundation slime his proposals with voodoo supply-side economic theory that has done nothing but instigate middle class decline every single time it's ever been instituted.

You asked for specifics. You got them. You don't like them because they are founded on socialist/Keynesian economic views; that's no surprise. But don't claim there aren't specific proposals being made just because you dislike the specific proposals being made.

[Benton]

(09-08-2015, 03:20 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: He offered zero specifics.

NONE. 

No way to pay for them.  Didn't submit his ideas to any non-partisan for vetting to determine what their impact on the economy or tax revenue would be.

NOT ONE.

You're welcome to show me that I'm wrong here....I'm sure that you will do so by saying "you're wrong" followed by some idiotic liberal talking point insult, all while claiming that I'm the guy that doesn't read or deal with facts.

No kiddin'!

He totally didn't mention the part about increasing inheritance taxes on anything over $3 million, ending trade agreements that reduce GDP. None of that stuff about how he was going to make money. None.

Nope.

Nadda.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 03:33 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: He did offer specifics, though. He just didn't give you specifics you want to hear.

You want specifics that guarantee an immediate offset of costs; Sanders hasn't claimed he'd do this. You want him to submit his ideas to corporate-financed think-tanks; sorry, but he isn't interested in having the Heritage Foundation slime his proposals with voodoo supply-side economic theory that has done nothing but instigate middle class decline every single time it's ever been instituted.

You asked for specifics. You got them. You don't like them because they are founded on socialist/Keynesian economic views; that's no surprise. But don't claim there aren't specific proposals being made just because you dislike the specific proposals being made.

You're again moving the goal posts.  You're basically arguing that he is offering specifics but in the same post arguing that he isn't offering specifics.

Circular logic is circular.  Either the guy is laying out specific proposals and plans or he's not. 

"I'm going to end hunger" is not specific.  It's a vague notion and nothing more.  

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-08-2015, 03:39 PM)Benton Wrote: No kiddin'!

He totally didn't mention the part about increasing inheritance taxes on anything over $300 million, ending trade agreements that reduce GDP. None of that stuff about how he was going to make money. None.

Nope.

Nadda.

But remember, as he told you, jake has his very own definition of "specific" that isn't the same as yours. Sanders didn't make up numbers out of thin air to show that he would immediately generate enough tax revenue to pay for each and every program in the very next fiscal year, and he also didn't submit his ideas to the Heritage Foundation. So that means his ideas weren't "specific".

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-08-2015, 03:40 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: You're again moving the goal posts.  You're basically arguing that he is offering specifics but in the same post arguing that he isn't offering specifics.

Circular logic is circular.  Either the guy is laying out specific proposals and plans or he's not. 

"I'm going to end hunger" is not specific.  It's a vague notion and nothing more.  

I seriously think you've got to be on the mods' radar at this point for blatant trolling.

Literally every sentence you just posted is completely nonsensical, so much so that I can't even insult it.

Congratulations, you've finally done it: I'm speechless.

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2015, 10:52 AM)michaelsean Wrote: i agree they shouldn't be able to go to the open market, but they should be able to produce furniture, etc for the government.  

This is a good idea.

Private companies who lost government contracts for furniture would still complain.  The government is a huge consumer of office furniture.  But I could see decent argument that it would be okay for government use or at least all the offices of the Department of corrections.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 03:39 PM)Benton Wrote: No kiddin'!

He totally didn't mention the part about increasing inheritance taxes on anything over $3 million, ending trade agreements that reduce GDP. None of that stuff about how he was going to make money. None.

Nope.

Nadda.

So that's specifics, eh?

"I'm going to raise the gasoline tax."  Is that specific?

"I'm going to raise the gasoline tax by $.02 per gallon."  That's more specific, right?

"I'm going to raise the gasoline tax by $.02 per gallon, which will add an additional $4.5T per year to our highway fund to work on our crumbling infrastructure, according to the nonpartisan ABC Foundation."   That's REAL specific, right?