Privately owned prisons suing states over lack of prisoners!
SAN FRANCISCO, Kalifornia (PNN) - December 6, 2013 - Privately owned state prisons have begun suing states for millions of dollars because they aren’t filled to capacity with inmates.
Most state prisons are run by private companies that have very deep pockets and powerful lobbyists. They create jobs for local economies and also take down the unemployment statistics because people in jail don’t count on the rolls. However, it’s a very expensive way to lower unemployment. In 2011, Kalifornia spent $9.6 billion on prisons. A prisoner there costs the state $45,006 a year. That’s quite a salary.
While federally there is still a war on drugs, state legislatures have begun to pass their own laws regarding possession and use of drugs, which are far more humane, constitutional and reasonable. This is impacting “Big Prison’s” business, and they aren’t happy.
Advocacy Group 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 the contracts reviewed. Those quotas can range from a mandatory occupancy of, for example, 70% occupancy in Kalifornia to up to 100% in some prisons in Arizona.
100% occupancy? That’s going to require a lot of fraudulent arrests to achieve.
As if we needed any more reasons to distrust the state and its militarized fighting force terrorist pig thug cops, we now have to take into account that they may very well start issuing arrest quotas on top of those pesky ticket quotas that no one likes to discuss. If the state starts paying out millions for breaching these insane contracts, is it more likely to continue to bleed cash or go after easily targeted citizens? I know which way I would bet.
There is nothing wrong with private industry running prisons - privatization of virtually everything is better and more efficient. It isn’t the prison owners who are to blame - if I could get the same deal as they did, I would. The state governments that agree to these deals are the ones on the hook. There is no rationale for making this type of business move - it reeks of crony capitalism.
