Sat, Sep 20, 2014, 8:29 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Corrections Corporation of America Message Board

  • mcprison mcprison Feb 23, 2001 10:27 AM Flag

    Private prison bill in California

    BILL NUMBER: AB 775 INTRODUCED
    BILL TEXT


    INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Romero

    FEBRUARY 22, 2001

    An act to add Sections 6032, 6032.1, and 6032.2 to the Penal Code,
    relating to private prisons.


    LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


    AB 775, as introduced, Romero. Private prisons.
    Existing law requires that the plans and specifications of every
    jail, prison, or other place of detention, as specified, be submitted
    to the Board of Corrections for its recommendations. Existing law
    requires that any privately operated local detention facility operate
    pursuant to a contract with the city, county, or city and county, as
    appropriate, in which the private agency or entity agrees to operate
    in compliance with all appropriate state and local building, zoning,
    health, safety, and fire statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and
    with the minimum jail standards established by regulations adopted by
    the Board of Corrections, as specified.
    This bill would require an individual, corporation, partnership,
    association, or other private organization or entity to receive
    authorization from the Board of Corrections before constructing or
    operating a private correctional facility. This bill would prohibit
    the Board of Corrections from authorizing the construction or
    operation of a private correctional facility unless that facility
    meets all regulations pertaining to the construction and operation of
    publicly operated state prisons. This bill would also prohibit a
    person who is charged and convicted in another state, or in federal
    court in another state, from being confined in a private correctional
    facility in this state.
    Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
    State-mandated local program: no.


    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


    SECTION 1. Section 6032 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
    6032. An individual corporation, partnership, association or
    other private organization or entity shall neither construct, nor
    operate a private correctional facility in this state unless
    authorized by the Board of Corrections.
    SEC. 2. Section 6032.1 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
    6032.1. The Board of Corrections shall not authorize an
    individual, corporation, partnership, association or other private
    organization or entity to construct or operate a private correctional
    facility in this state unless the facility meets all regulations
    pertaining to the construction and operation of publicly operated
    state prisons.
    SEC. 3. Section 6032.2 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
    6032.2. A person charged or convicted in another state, or
    charged or convicted in federal court in another state, may not be
    confined in a private correctional facility in this state.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • ...Would not this be the sublimely positive message board if only we would be the happy idiots that Jack would have us?

      Blind, Dumb, and Deaf: The Corporate Way.

    • Keep ignoring wene 5". If you believe all that is printed by the newspapers more power to you!
      Mcprison would be okay if he would post the negatives and the positives. He chooses what he post to spread his agenda. You all tickle me to think he runs around these boards just to help out all of us investors. Come on man, wake up. These companies are doing alot right, I quess I should start posting every news article that pops up on news wire about the big three everyday. Alot of people on this board know very little about the prison business. All I ask that Mcprison post the positives along with the negatives. This gives the board something to compare. But if the ignore button is what you want Mr. Wene 5" push it hard. Have a nice day.

    • Funny four of the six are currently in the process of looking to the private industry for help. You were correct, they have restictions, not prohibitions. It is all about saving the taxpayers money. I was not aware of any laws in Utah, nor Montana. I quess that leaves 44 states wide open. Thanks for your help.

    • mc, a lot of people put the "ignore" on aw a long time ago.

      Keep providing the news, it would take us forever to find all those items.

      I read some, delete some and aw can do the same or he can "ignore."

    • Why do you belittle the answer to your request for information? You asked for "one state" that has passed legislation prohibiting out-of-state inmates.

      If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

      However, other states have passed legislation restricting private prison operations.

      Here is a sampling:
      California, Utah, Montana, Arkansas, Illinios and Alabama all have laws preventing private companies from incarcerating/importing inmates.

      Lastly, the CA law (1999) from what I learned from the newspaper stories was designed at preventing only the importation of out-of-state inmates, not federal inmates. I believe that other bill introduced this year may address some restrictions for companies planning to house out-of-state fed inmates in CA.

      By the way, I accept your apology for being wrong.

    • Mcprison, this one will fail just like the one in Georgia will. I do agree that any private company must meet the standards which are set forth by the state. The federal prisoners can be housed in any state. That battle has already been fought. The federal government can deem the private company a law enforcement agency. Same old story, just another state.

      • 1 Reply to aw0099
      • I don't believe the Federal Bureau of Prisons can give law enforcement powers to contractors at prisons it doesn't own. States can pass legislation barring private contractors from housing federal inmates unless a contract already exists. What law are you citing that gives the federal government the power to usurp state sovernity in these issues? It is not an issue of interstate commerce.

    • Wow, another union owned politician, trying to stick it to private industry in California. What else is new? BFD.

 
CXW
35.11+0.11(+0.31%)Sep 19 4:04 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Sears Holdings Corporation
NasdaqGSFri, Sep 19, 2014 4:00 PM EDT
Dresser-Rand Group Inc.
NYSEFri, Sep 19, 2014 4:04 PM EDT