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

Corrections Corporation of America Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • prisonet prisonet Feb 23, 2001 8:02 PM Flag

    Private prison bill in California

    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.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • It's late, I am tired, and I will argue with you later. One point I will leave you with is that both bills, the one in Georgia, and California will Fail. Plain and simple. The idiots that came down from Ohio to get involved in the hearing in Atlanta last week, should be put on the payroll by the private industry. They not only pissed off the committee that was hearing the pro & cons, but they managed to piss off the senator that sponsered the bill. Good Job folks. Prisonet just remember I told you so. One question Prisonet, tell me one state that has passed this law. Not one has made it out of the house, to the best of my knowledge.

      • 2 Replies to aw0099
      • what made it out of the statehouse.

        BILL TEXT

        CHAPTER 707
        AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 28, 1999
        AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 17, 1999

        INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Kuehl
        (Coauthors: Assembly Members Aroner, Bock, Jackson, Keeley,
        Leach, Longville, Romero, and Strom-Martin)
        (Coauthor: Senator Bowen)

        FEBRUARY 26, 1999

        An act to add Section 11198 to the Penal Code, relating to


        AB 1222, Kuehl. Corrections.
        Existing law establishes the Interstate Corrections Compact Act
        and the Western Interstate Corrections Compact Act which authorize
        states to enter into contracts with other party states for the
        confinement of inmates on behalf of the sending state in institutions
        situated within a receiving state. Any court, agency, or officer of
        this state with the authority to commit or transfer an inmate to any
        institution for confinement may commit or transfer that inmate to
        any institution within or without this state if this state has
        entered into a contract for the confinement of inmates in that
        institution pursuant to a compact under one of the above acts.
        This bill would prohibit, except as authorized by California
        statute, any city, county, city and county, or private entity from
        causing to be brought into, housed in, confined in, or detained in
        this state any person sentenced to serve a criminal commitment under
        the authority of any jurisdiction outside of California. The bill
        also would express the intent of the Legislature that this provision
        neither prohibits nor authorizes the confinement of federal prisoners
        in this state.


        SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that this
        act, by ensuring continued public jurisdiction over correctional
        facilities, is necessary for the protection of the public safety of
        California residents and applies equally to both local and
        out-of-state private entities.
        (b) The Legislature further finds and declares that California has
        a legitimate interest in reserving, as exclusive unto itself,
        exercise of its sovereign power to recognize the authority of any
        jurisdiction, outside of this state, to enforce the housing,
        confinement, or detention of any person within the borders of
        SEC. 2. Section 11198 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
        11198. (a) Except as authorized by California statute, no city,
        county, city and county, or private entity shall cause to be brought
        into, housed in, confined in, or detained in this state any person
        sentenced to serve a criminal commitment under the authority of any
        jurisdiction outside of California.
        (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that this act shall
        neither prohibit nor authorize the confinement of federal prisoners
        in this state.

    • Case in point, Georgia tried the same thing. The feds stated as long as the private contractor housed federal prisoners it would be out of the hands of the state of Georgia and they would not assume any liability.

      Speaking of Georgia, the anti-privatization caravan rolled into Atlanta on Wed. of this week. They were there to voice their concerns about privitization in the state of Georgia. To make a long story short, when they were done. The committee told them they were not concerned with something that happened in Ohio three years ago. They stated that the state governments around the United States had enough problems of their own, and should not be throwing stones at the private industry. The citizens of the two counties that are waiting for the private facilities to open up. McRae, and Lumpkin, were there in force. Their point was simple, first for the state of Georgia to follow up on a promise they made two years ago. That was to CCA and the counties to fill those two prisons up. The counties involved spent approx. 2.1 million dollars to run the electrical, sewer, and water lines to the facility with the promise from the state that the revenues would pay the bills off. So when the state tried to block the Federal inmates from coming in, so they could pressure the company to sell the two prisons to the state the local represenatives and the communities told the state and the import AFL-CIO thugs to butt out. The Represenative that sponsered the bill left half way through the session to go across the street to attend a cookout. Thus the bill will finally die. Just like the one in California will.

      I agree with the states that say, the contractors must meet all requirements set forth by the state. They must submit to independant auditors. The training and salaries must be equal. I promote the same accountability. But when a few try to ban private contractors from operating in the states, that will never work. Take Indiana for instance. A few people have tried to ban private contractors from operating in their state. They will be 266 million in the hole this year. At the same time they pass a law banning tobacco products from their facilities. They have fired 175 officiers for bringing the contraband into the facilities. Please mutiply 175 x 30,000+ they have tied up in each officier. They have taken on average up to 6 months of good time from over 1100 inmates. That figures up to a additional 550 years of incarceration time for this group of inmates. Please multply 550 years x the average cost of 15,330.00 a year per inmate. This does not include the cost of up keep or maint. cost of the facilities that keep these folks locked up. By the way Indiana is out of bed space. Mcprison should be posting the news articles from the Macon, and Atlanta papers. If he does not follow through I will. Prisonet tell me does this make any sense to you?

      P.S. All three private prisons that are in operation in Georgia have passed all of the states audits with flying colors. They have been in operation approx. 3 years without any major incidents. One is operated by Cornell, the other two by CCA. CCA has another one ready to open up, with one nearing completion.
      From what I understand the private facilities have a on sight monitor, that generates a daily report. Any issue that is sighted by the monitor must be resolved in 24 hours, and agreed upon by the monitor and the Warden at that facility. Georgia should be a model for other states to look at. I am sure I will be hearing from you soon prisonet.

16.79-0.72(-4.11%)Aug 29 4:02 PMEDT