Tag Archives: prisons

Here’s What the Trump Administration Did This Week While All Eyes Were on Comey

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

It’s been James Comey week, and rightly so: President Donald Trump’s firing of the FBI director threatens the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Some Democrats are calling it a constitutional crisis and even some Republicans say an independent investigation is necessary. But while everyone was watching the Comey saga unfold, the Trump administration continued to advance its agenda. Here’s what happened while you weren’t paying attention:

The administration launched a commission that could suppress voting.
Trump signed an executive order establishing a vote fraud commission on Thursday to study “vulnerabilities in voting systems and practices used for Federal elections that could lead to improper voter registrations and improper voting, including fraudulent voter registrations and fraudulent voting.” Since voting fraud is nearly nonexistent problem, civil rights advocates are rightly concerned that it’ll be used to justify voting suppression efforts. As Mother Jones‘ Pema Levy reported, the leadership of the commission gives further credence to these concerns.

The Justice Department reupped the war on drugs.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Friday that he’s reversing a key part of the Obama administration’s criminal justice reform. Sessions has instructed federal prosecutors to “charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense.” Former Attorney General Eric Holder’s guidance had directed prosecutors to pursue drug charges in a way that did not trigger mandatory minimum sentences if defendants met certain criteria such as not belonging to a gang or major drug trafficking organization. “Jeff Sessions is pushing federal prosecutors to reverse progress and repeat a failed experiment—the War on Drugs—that has devastated the lives and rights of millions of Americans, ripping apart families and communities and setting millions, particularly Black people and other people of color, on a vicious cycle of incarceration,” said Udi Ofer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Campaign for Smart Justice, in a statement.

The EPA signaled that it’s choosing industry over science.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt dismissed half the scientists from the agency’s 18-member Board of Scientific Counselors and is considering replacing them with industry representatives. “The administrator believes we should have people on this board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community,” an EPA spokesperson told the New York Times. The board gives advice and recommendations to ensure the integrity of the EPA’s scientific research and has been the target of political attacks from industry groups and Republicans. “If they are proposing that the decisions not be based on science, what is it they are proposing they be based on?” Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told ThinkProgress. “The alternative is pure politics. Who has the most influence?”

The health secretary rejected effective treatment for opioid addiction.
Trump has promised to fight the opioid epidemic and appointed a commission to address the issue, but comments from the government’s top health executive raise concerns about the administration’s approach. When asked about drug treatment this week during an event about the crisis, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said, “If we’re just substituting one opioid for another, we’re not moving the dial much. Folks need to be cured so they can be productive members of society and realize their dreams.” The website for the National Institutes of Health says it’s a myth that medicine-assisted treatment substitutes “one addiction for another,” and studies have shown it to be effective. “This is a dangerous, dangerous statement,” physician Corey Waller, chair of legislative advocacy for the American Society of Addiction Medicine, told Politico. “He is moving out of the world of scientific fact into the world of alternative facts.”

View original post here: 

Here’s What the Trump Administration Did This Week While All Eyes Were on Comey

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, OXO, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s What the Trump Administration Did This Week While All Eyes Were on Comey

"I Want Americans to Know That Guantánamo Happened Not to Monsters, but to Men"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Courtesy of Lakhdar Boumediene

Lakhdar Boumediene and Mustafa Ait Idir were part of the “Algerian Six,” a group of men rounded up in Bosnia on the unproven claim they had plotted to bomb the American Embassy in Sarajevo. The two were beaten, shackled, blindfolded, and transferred in January 2002 to the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base—where they languished for seven years without charges under torturous conditions. Boumediene went on a 28-month hunger strike and was force-fed through a broken nose. The strike, he told me, “was the only thing I could control. Going hungry was hard, but it would have been harder to do nothing at all.”

On his behalf, Boumediene’s lawyers sued the federal government in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. The court’s landmark 2008 ruling in Boumediene v. Bush established the right of Guantánamo detainees to use American courts to challenge their captivity. In a new book, Witnesses of the Unseen: Seven Years in Guantánamo, Boumediene and Ait Idir give their account of what happened inside America’s most notorious and opaque military prison, and offer readers a window into the horrors of America’s war on terror.

Mother Jones: What did you want an American reader to understand about Guantánamo?

Lakhdar Boumediene: I want Americans to know that Guantánamoâ&#128;&#139; happened not to monsters, but to men. Innocent men. Family men. I had two little girls, and I missed most of their childhoods. I hope our book will open some people’s eyes, and maybe even convince some people to be less violent and more thoughtful.

MJ: Your Supreme Court case gave Guantánamo inmates an avenue to challenge their detention. Why was it important to bring your case to the American justice system?

LB: If my lawyers hadn’t argued my case all the way to the Supreme Court, I would still be in Guantánamoâ&#128;&#139;. So I didn’t really have a choice. But I’m glad my name stands for the principle that everyone has the right to force the government to justify his imprisonment.

MJ: You describe your cell as akin to “a cage at a zoo.” Can you talk a bit more about the conditions you witnessed at Guantánamo?

LB: At the very beginning, they hadn’t even built a jail with cells. We were held outdoors in cages, with scorpions crawling around and the sun beating down on us and buckets to go to the bathroom in. The stench was awful. Eventually, they built an actual prison, but the conditions were still horrible. Most of the guards made it their business to make our lives miserable, attacking us and our religion. But the hardest thing was just the uncertainty, not knowing if I would ever see my wife and children again, even though I knew I was innocent.

MJ: You spent more than two years on hunger strike. What led you to do it?

LB: I was tired of being treated as less than a man. Every aspect of my life at Guantánamoâ&#128;&#139; was controlled by the military. What I ate and drank, when I ate and drank, when I slept, when I walked, where I walked. That was wrong—I was an innocent man. I was a man like them. I decided I would not eat their food unless they would treat me as a human being. They had their orders, I made my decision. I controlled my hunger strike. They could force-feed me—and I knew they would; I never wanted to die—but they couldn’t make me actually swallow their garbage. I felt like I had to do something to protest the unfairness of the situation.

MJ: What’s your single most unforgettable memory from Guantánamo?

LB: There’s so much that I wish I could forget: The beatings. The force-feedings. The heartache of not knowing if my wife and children were safe. The pain of seeing my friends tortured. But I’ll also never forget what it was like to hold my wife and children again, to know that I was home, to know that I had managed to survive.

MJ: Both you and Mustafa detail horrific abuse from guards at Guantánamo. Had Americans known what was happening, do you think there would have been an intervention?

LB: I hope so. That’s part of why I wanted to share my story. I don’t think most Americans were happy about the abuse—they just didn’t know about it. Of course, that’s partly because they chose to look away. Next time, I hope they won’t.

Originally posted here: 

"I Want Americans to Know That Guantánamo Happened Not to Monsters, but to Men"

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on "I Want Americans to Know That Guantánamo Happened Not to Monsters, but to Men"

The Private Prison Industry Is Licking Its Chops Over Trump’s Deportation Plans

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Immigration agents sparked panic across the country last week, when a series of high-profile operations made it clear that a new era of crackdowns on undocumented immigrants had begun. Coming on the heels of a couple of major executive orders on immigration, the arrests and deportations were a very public reminder of President Donald Trump’s promise to deport upwards of 2 million immigrants upon taking office.

But given that America’s detention system for immigrants has been running at full capacity for some time now, where is the president going to put all of these people before deporting them?

In new jails, for starters. In the same executive order that called for the construction of a southern border wall, Trump instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to build out its sprawling network of immigration detention centers. Starting “immediately,” his order said, ICE should construct new facilities, lease space for immigrants alongside inmates in existing local jails, and sign new contracts—likely with private prison companies. The scale of that expansion became clearer on February 5, when the Los Angeles Times reported on a memo handed down in late January from White House immigration experts to top Homeland Security officials. The document called for raising the number of immigrants ICE incarcerates daily, nationwide, to 80,000 people.

Last year, ICE detained more than 352,000 people. The number of detainees held each day, typically between 31,000 and 34,000, reached a historic high of about 41,000 people in the fall, as Customs and Border Protection apprehended more people on the southwest border while seeing a simultaneous rise in asylum seekers. But doubling the daily capacity to 80,000 “would require ICE to sprint to add more capacity than the agency has ever added in its entire history,” says Carl Takei, staff attorney for the ACLU’s National Prison Project. It would also take an extra $2 billion in government funding per year, detention experts interviewed by Mother Jones estimated. And, Takei warned, “we don’t know if 80,000 is where he’ll stop.”

Yet even if ICE does not adopt an 80,000-person detention quota, other changes laid out in Trump’s executive orders suggest that vastly more people will be detained in the coming months and years. For example, Trump ordered ICE to prioritize deporting not only immigrants who been convicted or charged with crimes, but also those who had “committed acts that constitute a chargeable offense”—a category that could include entering the country illegally and driving without a license. Trump also ordered Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, who oversees ICE, to take “all appropriate actions” to detain undocumented immigrants while their cases are pending.

Beyond that, ICE could stop granting parole to asylum seekers, explains Margo Schlanger, a former Obama administration official who served as Homeland Security’s top authority on civil rights. With ICE taking enforcement action against more categories of immigration offenders and releasing fewer of them, Schlanger says, “we could get to a very large sum of people in detention very quickly.”

It’s not difficult to guess who profits. In an earnings call last week, the private prison giant CoreCivic (formerly known as the Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA) announced that it saw the ICE detention expansion as a business opportunity. “When coupled with the above average rate of crossings along the southwest border, these executive orders appear likely to significantly increase the need for safe, humane, and appropriate detention bed capacity that we have available,” CoreCivic President and CEO Damon Hininger said.

As of November, a whopping 65 percent of ICE detainees were held in facilities run by private prison companies, which typically earn a fee per detainee per night and whose business model depends upon minimizing costs to return profits to their shareholders. Since Trump’s election, private prison stocks have soared, and two new, for-profit detention centers are opening in Georgia and Texas.

Another private prison company, Management & Training Corp., is reportedly seeking a contract with ICE to reopen the Willacy County Correctional Institution, a troubled detention camp that held up to 2,000 ICE detainees in Kevlar tents between 2006 and 2011. “Historically, ICE has relied heavily on the private prison industry every time the detention system has expanded,” Takei says. “There’s little doubt in my mind that they will continue to rely on the private prison industry in what’s going to be the biggest expansion of the agency in history.”

The first new detention center contracts will likely take the form of arrangements between ICE and local governments to reopen empty prison facilities as detention centers or rent beds in existing local jails, Takei says. The arrangements, known intergovernmental service agreements, allow ICE to cut deals with local governments and private prison companies while avoiding a lengthy public bidding process. Occasionally, the local government agrees to hold ICE detainees alongside inmates in their publicly run jail—an arrangement a Department of Homeland Security subcommittee recently called “the most problematic” option for holding detainees. But most of the time, local governments simply act as middlemen in deals between ICE and private prison companies.

The opaque nature of the process allows all parties to avoid public outcry before the deals are signed, explains Silky Shah, co-director of the Detention Watch Network, an immigrant rights advocacy group. So far, immigration advocates haven’t gotten wind of many new contracts being negotiated or signed since Trump’s inauguration. “But that doesn’t mean contracting activity is not taking place,” Takei says. “I suspect there are closed-door meetings taking place across the country right now.”

Expanding detention quickly could have a high human cost. Schlanger is worried that conditions inside detention facilities could deteriorate without proper oversight from the Department of Homeland Security. “There are a lot of bad things that happen if the number of beds is ramped up fast, without appropriate controls, monitoring, supervision, and care,” she says, pointing to the potential overuse of solitary confinement, inadequate safety measures, poor nutrition, and insufficient medical care. “That means detainees could die.” Asylum seekers, she warns, will have a harder time fighting their immigration cases from inside detention centers, where it’s difficult to access lawyers and gather evidence. More could be coerced into voluntary deportation: “You’re vulnerable to the government saying to you, ‘Look, we’ll let you out from detention, but you have to give up your immigration case.'”

We don’t have to look far in the past to see the danger of rushing to open new detention facilities. Last year, as several thousand Haitian immigrants arrived on the southern border, fleeing natural disasters and poverty, the Department of Homeland Security began seeking contracts for new detention facilities to accommodate the surge. In their scramble to secure space for the new arrivals, ICE officials reportedly considered ignoring quality standards for the facilities—”scraping the bottom looking for beds,” as one official told the Wall Street Journal.

The bottom of the barrel, in this case, included a prison in Cibola County, New Mexico, owned by CoreCivic. Last summer, after an investigation by The Nation revealed a pattern of severe, longtime medical neglect in the 1,100-bed facility—which had gone months without a doctor—the US Bureau of Prisons decided to pull its inmates out and cancel its contract with CoreCivic. Yet less than a month after the last federal prisoner was transferred out, ICE was already negotiating an agreement with the county and CoreCivic to detain immigrants in the newly vacant facility. Four hundred immigrants are currently detained there. Takei notes that ICE contracted with the same company, for the same prison: “There weren’t any substantive changes.”

Shah expects to see familiar problems like poor medical care worsen as new deals for detention facilities are finalized. “One of the concerns we hear most often is that when people complain about ailments, officers will come back and just say, ‘Well, drink more water, or take an Advil and you’ll be fine,'” she says. “It’s a really harsh system already. If you’re going to expand at this level, it’s just going to become that much harsher.”

Read this article: 

The Private Prison Industry Is Licking Its Chops Over Trump’s Deportation Plans

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Private Prison Industry Is Licking Its Chops Over Trump’s Deportation Plans

35 Years in Prison. 12 Years in Solitary. Now This Famed Puerto Rican Nationalist Will Be Set Free.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

President Barack Obama on Tuesday commuted the remaining 20 years of the 55-year sentence Oscar López Rivera was serving after his 1981 conviction for “seditious conspiracy.” The 74-year-old Puerto Rican nationalist was accused of being affiliated with the FALN, a group fighting for the independence of Puerto Rico that was responsible for a series of bombings in the 1970s and 1980s.

In May 2014, Mother Jones‘ Shane Bauer wrote about López Rivera’s case:

In 1981, López was charged with armed robbery, possession of an unregistered firearm, and interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle, allegedly as part of a larger plot to challenge the United States’ role in Puerto Rico by force. The court determined that he was connected to the FALN. At his trial, one man testified that López taught him bomb-making skills.

In all, the FALN claimed responsibility for more than 120 bombings across the US between 1974 and 1983, leading to the death of six and the injury of dozens. But the basis for López’s conviction was specifically the more than two-dozen bombings claimed by the organization in the Chicago area, none of which resulted in injuries. A 1980 Chicago Tribune editorial observed that the bombs were “placed and timed as to damage property rather than persons” and that the FALN was “out to call attention to their cause rather than to shed blood.”

At least 16 other Puerto Rican nationalists were charged with seditious conspiracy and related offenses in the early 1980s. None were ultimately found to have connections to actual attacks, yet at the sentencing hearing, the judge said he regretted not being able to issue the death penalty. He handed out sentences up to 90 years, with López Rivera receiving 55 years. By contrast, the average sentence for homicide in 1992 (the closest year for which data is available) was less than 12.5 years.

During his 33 years in prison, López Rivera has served 12 years in solitary confinement in some of the highest security prisons in the country. His lawyer, Jan Susler, says he hasn’t been allowed to do an in-person media interview for 15 years. Nonmedia visits are restricted as well, she says. A delegation that included a New York senator, a New York assemblyman, and New York City Council members were denied authorization to visit him in prison.

Former President Bill Clinton offered López Rivera clemency in 1999 “against the protests of the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the US attorney’s office, and even his wife,” Bauer wrote. Instead of leaving prison, López Rivera chose to remain incarcerated until his codefendant, Carlos Alberto Torres, was released. (Torres was granted parole in 2010.) López Rivera, who is now 74, will be released from a federal prison on May 17.

He was one of 209 people who had their sentences commuted by Obama just three days before Obama leaves office. Perhaps the highest-profile case was Chelsea Manning, the former Army private accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of US government files to WikiLeaks in 2010. Obama also pardoned 64 people on Tuesday.

Read More:  

35 Years in Prison. 12 Years in Solitary. Now This Famed Puerto Rican Nationalist Will Be Set Free.

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 35 Years in Prison. 12 Years in Solitary. Now This Famed Puerto Rican Nationalist Will Be Set Free.

California Set a Bunch of Drug Offenders Free—and Then Left Them Hanging

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

California’s experiment with releasing thousands of drug offenders from its prisons—a major step in the fight against mass incarceration—has run up against a big problem: Once they’re out, there aren’t enough social service programs to help these offenders overcome addictions and restart their lives.

At least 13,500 inmates have been freed in California since 2014, when voters passed a measure called Proposition 47 that reclassified simple drug possession as a misdemeanor rather than a felony. But the state has not yet invested enough money in treatment programs, according to a seven-month investigation by journalists at the Desert Sun, the Ventura County Star, the Record Searchlight, and the Salinas Californian. The end result: Thousands of addicts and mentally ill people have gone from incarceration to the streets, without a safety net to help them deal with substance abuse.

“Prop 47 was not a cure-all. It’s not a panacea,” Michael Romano, a Stanford law expert who helped draft the proposition, told the reporters. It succeeded in getting drug offenders out of overcrowded prisons and jails, he says, but that’s just “one piece in an extraordinarily complicated puzzle.”

It costs about $20,000 to send someone through inpatient drug treatment, which typically lasts six months to a year. It costs three times more to keep him in jail or prison for a year. Under Prop 47, the millions of dollars saved in prison costs were supposed to be earmarked for rehabilitation programs to help inmates restart their lives. The reporters—who filed 65 records requests, pored over thousands of pages of public documents, and interviewed dozens of policymakers, police officers, and former felons for their investigation—found that not a single cent had been spent yet on these programs. An agency has been working to allocate the money for a year and a half, but it just started accepting bids last month to give out its grants. During this fiscal year, which started in October, the state plans to spend $34 million of its $67 million Prop 47 fund on programs to help the mentally ill, addicts, and youth offenders.

In the meantime, drug treatment programs are struggling with long waiting lists. “People die waiting to get treatment,” David Ramage, an administrator at Impact Drug and Alcohol Treatment Center in Pasadena, which has a 90-day wait list, told the reporters.

At the same time, when new offenders land in drug court, where they have a choice of either going through probation or rehab, fewer choose rehab now—because a misdemeanor offense may be a quicker ordeal and less restrictive. The longest-running drug court program in Los Angeles has seen its enrollment drop from 80 people to just 4, the reporters found. For more, check out the full investigation here.

See more here – 

California Set a Bunch of Drug Offenders Free—and Then Left Them Hanging

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California Set a Bunch of Drug Offenders Free—and Then Left Them Hanging

Federal Bureau of Prisons Renews Contract With the Company Formerly Known as CCA

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The private prison company formerly known as the Corrections Corporation of America—recently rebranded CoreCivic—announced Tuesday that the Federal Bureau of Prisons will extend its two-year contract with the company, despite recent findings of inadequate supervision and gaps in oversight of private prisons.

In August, the Department of Justice announced that it would phase out its use of private prisons. The announcement came on the heels of a blockbuster Mother Jones investigation of a Louisiana CCA prison by reporter Shane Bauer, and just one week after the DOJ’s inspector general released a report that found shortcomings in safety, security, and oversight at private prisons used by the government. The Bureau of Prisons is a subsidiary of the DOJ.

The Bureau of Prisons’ 1,633-bed contract extension for the McRae Correctional Facility in Georgia goes against the recommendation of Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, who in an August memo explained the DOJ decision to end its partnerships with private prisons. “As each private prison contract reaches the end of its term, the bureau should either decline to renew that contract or substantially reduce its scope in a manner consistent with law and the overall decline of the bureau’s inmate population,” Yates wrote. “This is the first step in the process of reducing, and ultimately ending, our use of privately operated prisons.”

The renewed contract covers 8 percent fewer beds than the former.

Continued – 

Federal Bureau of Prisons Renews Contract With the Company Formerly Known as CCA

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Federal Bureau of Prisons Renews Contract With the Company Formerly Known as CCA

We Have Effective Treatment for Hepatitis C. So Why Don’t States Give It to 100,000 Inmates?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Less than 1 percent of inmates with hepatitis C are receiving treatment in state prisons, according to a new study by prison officials, doctors, and researchers. It’s largely because prisons can’t afford the drugs they need to fight the dangerous liver disease that spreads through blood and bodily fluids.

Hepatitis C kills more Americans than any other infectious disease, including HIV and tuberculosis; about 17 percent of the prison population in America is suffering from it, compared with 1 percent of the general population. New treatments have been developed but are extremely expensive, so over the last two years, inmates in Tennessee, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania have sued for access to the drugs.

The study, published in Health Affairs, comes on the heels of those lawsuits. It was conducted by researchers at Yale University in collaboration with the Association of State Correctional Administrators, which includes the heads of corrections agencies in every state as well as the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Researchers collected data from 41 states about hepatitis C infections and treatment in prisons. They found that more than 106,000 inmates in state prisons had the disease as of January 2015, and of those, only about 950, or less than 0.9 percent were being treated.

Prison officials who helped conduct the study have blamed the high cost of treatment. In 2013, new drugs were released that have proved very effective, curing the infection in 90 percent of cases in a few months. (Previous treatment options cured roughly half of cases, took much longer, and resulted in debilitating side effects.) But the cost of the new drugs can be prohibitive: A 12-week course of medication can range from $54,600 to $94,500, depending on the particular drug.

Some government agencies can get discounts. The federal prison system receives 24 percent off, while the Department of Veterans Affairs may have a discount of 50 percent, the researchers found. But state prisons aren’t so lucky. Many of them get a discount of less than 10 percent, and one state gets no discount at all. As a result, state prison officials say they must make tough choices about whom to treat.

Treating hepatitis C patients “requires resources and discounts we don’t have,” A.T. Wall, director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections and a co-author of the study, said in a statement. “What we desperately need are less costly drugs and more funding.”

Corrections departments in 16 states reported spending at least 10 percent of their total budget for drugs on hepatitis C medication. But states could actually save money in the long run if they invest in treatment right away, the researchers noted. When left untreated, patients with hepatitis C may need a liver transplant, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they can spread the infection to others. To get the drugs for less money, the researchers encouraged state prisons to partner with qualified health centers that can receive discounts through a federal program.

Thomas Castelli, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who is representing inmates in Tennessee, said in a statement, “Incarcerating people under conditions that erode their health, safety and human dignity amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, which not only has devastating long-term effects for those individuals, but which undermines the purported purpose of a rehabilitative criminal justice system.”

Health Affairs

Read article here – 

We Have Effective Treatment for Hepatitis C. So Why Don’t States Give It to 100,000 Inmates?

Posted in ALPHA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Have Effective Treatment for Hepatitis C. So Why Don’t States Give It to 100,000 Inmates?

California Will Keep Housing Its Detained Immigrants in For-Profit Centers

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill on Wednesday that would have prevented local governments from contracting with for-profit companies to detain immigrants. Seventy percent of the state’s immigrant detainees are held in for-profit facilities, according to data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

In his veto message, Brown said that he was “troubled” by recent reports revealing poor conditions in some private detention facilities. But he explained his veto by deferring to the Department of Homeland Security, which manages ICE and is currently examining its use of for-profit companies.

DHS’s choice to review its use of private detention centers came less than two weeks after the Department of Justice announced that it was ending its use of private prisons. A report from DHS’s advisory council is expected back by November 30. “These actions indicate that a more permanent solution to this issue may be at hand,” Brown wrote. “I urge the federal authorities to act swiftly.”

But last Thursday, in a statement interpreted as a bad sign for those pushing to eliminate these for-profit centers, ICE director Sarah Saldaña told the House Judiciary Committee that eliminating private detention centers would “pretty much turn our system upside down.” Around 73 percent of the immigration detainees are held in facilities currently operated by for-profit companies. If the for-profit companies were no longer housing detainees, ICE would have to build more detention centers and hire staff in order to meet its ongoing legal requirement to maintain at least 34,000 immigration detention beds.

The California bill, which passed 25-13 in the state Senate and 51-28 in the House last month, would have eventually closed three of California’s four private immigration detention centers. It also would have required all of California’s immigration detention facilities, public and private, to meet the most recent federal standards for things like medical care, and would have extended extra protections to LGBT inmates, prohibiting them from being forced into segregated housing on the basis of their gender identity or sexual orientation.

Closing the three private detention centers would have affected approximately 40,000 immigrants held there every year, according to Christina Fialho, executive director at Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC), a nonprofit that helped draft the California bill. With the three facilities closed, ICE would have been forced to send detainees elsewhere—either to publicly run local jails, out-of-state detention centers, other private facilities, or possibly community-based monitoring systems.

Among the facilities that the bill would have closed is Adelanto, a 1,960-bed center run by the for-profit corrections company GEO Group and the subject of a 2015 report from CIVIC. The report pointed to allegations of inhumane conditions and poor access to legal representation. At least one immigrant has died at Adelanto due to “egregious errors” by the center’s medical staff, who did not give him proper medical examinations or help him access timely off-site treatment, according to a letter signed by 29 members of Congress who sought an ICE investigation into health and safety concerns at the facility last summer.

Last November, a group of at least 400 detainees at Adelanto launched a hunger strike to protest what they saw as inhumane conditions. They asked for longer visiting hours with their families, better medical and dental care, cleaner and better-prepared food, daily access to an outdoor yard, and an ICE employee to handle their grievances rather than a GEO staff member. “We are detainees and not prisoners,” they wrote in a letter obtained by Think Progress. GEO Group typically makes $111.92 a day in revenue for each immigrant it incarcerates in Adelanto, according to ICE.

Here’s our coverage of the latest developments:

August 29, 2016: The Department of Homeland Security announces that it will be reexamining its use of private prison companies to hold immigration detainees.
August 18, 2016: The Justice Department declares that it will stop contracting with private prisons, which incarcerate 12 percent of federal inmates.
August 12, 2016: A blockbuster report from the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General finds that private prisons are less safe and less secure than their publicly run counterparts, and that the Bureau of Prisons does not adequately supervise their operation.
June 23, 2016: Mother Jones publishes reporter Shane Bauer’s account of four months working at a private prison in Louisiana.

View the original here – 

California Will Keep Housing Its Detained Immigrants in For-Profit Centers

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California Will Keep Housing Its Detained Immigrants in For-Profit Centers

Thousands of Girls Are Locked Up for Talking Back or Staying Out Late

Mother Jones

It was late on a weekend night and Kara was bored. Her adopted mother, Dotty—nearly 70, arthritic, and having recently recovered from heart surgery—was asleep upstairs. Talking with her cousin on the phone wasn’t easing Kara’s restlessness. She wanted a snack from the corner store a few blocks away, so the 12-year-old told her cousin she was going to drive her mom’s car.

“That is not a good idea,” her cousin warned.

“I’ll be all right,” Kara said before hanging up. She went outside, turned the ignition of Dotty’s burgundy Oldsmobile, and carefully stepped on the gas.

Kara, who was in seventh grade and had been assessed as a gifted student, drove a few blocks—passing near the spot where she’d gotten into a fight with a gang of girls who’d beaten up her friend, and then by the local fast-food joint where a woman would later be shot during a robbery. Then she tried to park and swiped a dumpster, scraping the front of the Olds. Panicked, she drove home, parked, and slipped upstairs.

These Photos Show What Life Is Like for Girls in Juvenile Detention

When Kara woke up the next morning, two policemen were standing at the foot of her bed. Dotty had seen the scratch, called the cops, and told them that she suspected her increasingly hard-to-handle daughter. Kara confessed. The officers saw an elderly, single mom and a cocky adolescent in need of some discipline. Not long afterward, Kara was summoned to juvenile court.

Kara was born in 1991, while her biological mom was in prison for stabbing an ex-boyfriend. To keep her out of the foster system, family friends Dotty and Ralph adopted Kara. (Their names and those of others appearing in this story have been changed.) Both were then in their early 60s. Kara became attached to Ralph, but he died when she was only six years old, and she started to act out. Tantrums gave way to drinking with friends and smoking cigarettes. Dotty struggled to keep up.

In front of the judge, Dotty’s frustrations poured out: Kara was always talking back, always disobedient. She took advantage of their age difference and Dotty’s health problems. Dotty was worried that her daughter’s underage driving was going to raise the rates of her car insurance. As she listened to her mother vent, Kara didn’t know how to act—especially in court—so she just sat there and fixed a smile on her face.

That didn’t help. “The judge looked at me and said, ‘You think this is funny? How about 10 days in secure detention? Would you think that’s funny?'” Kara, who is now 25, tells me. We are in her hometown in Virginia, walking toward the courthouse where she first faced a judge—and where she spent a lot of time during law school. She’s now waiting on her bar exam results.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2013. *Excludes weapons charges

After the judge’s sentence that day 12 years ago, an officer handcuffed her and drove her to a hulking concrete detention center where she had to undress and put on her uniform: underwear, a sweatsuit, and socks. “I couldn’t believe it at first. It was so unreal,” she says. She spent most of that first day in tears. Over the next 10 days, she met a lot of girls like her. “It felt like we were all just troubled,” she says. “Not like we were horrible.” When Kara was released on probation, she was given rules she had to abide by: obey curfew, don’t skip school or probation meetings, don’t talk back to your parents, and keep your room clean.

From that point on, Kara and Dotty had to meet with Kara’s probation officer every week. And every week Dotty would tell the officer about Kara’s late hours, how she was disrespectful. “My health being so bad, she got away with a lot. I didn’t know who else to go to,” Dotty tells me. She didn’t realize the list of grievances she was getting off her chest constituted “technical violations”—infractions of the terms of Kara’s probation. When Dotty repeatedly complained that Kara didn’t clean her room or make her bed, Kara was sent back to juvie. When Dotty kept telling the probation officer that Kara talked back, she was sent back again. A probation officer once busted Kara by calling her house after curfew, catching her out. By the time she was 16, Kara had been detained three times—one of the nearly 50,000 adolescent girls who enter the courts every year because of a system of criminalizing low-level offenses that has long been biased against girls. “My biggest thing was not making my bed,” Kara says. “That was considered a violation of probation. That I got locked up for it is ridiculous.”

How does a kid wind up in jail for an unmade bed? Ironically, the answer lies in the primary goal of the juvenile justice system: rehabilitation. So that young people have a chance at changing their behavior, juvenile court judges are given great discretion in sentencing. Court proceedings are more informal than those for adults. Juveniles’ misdeeds are “petitioned” at a hearing rather than prosecuted at a trial. Instead of being found guilty, kids are “delinquent”—language that implies a state both psychological and changeable. Juveniles can also be charged with infractions known as “status offenses,” so named because the person’s status as a minor is the single factor that makes his or her actions illegal. Running away from home is a status offense. So is skipping school or missing curfew. Once a kid is roped into the system, she can be drawn in again and again for minor violations of her probation. The flexibility in the system means kids have greater opportunities to reform, but it also means judges have a lot of leeway to inflict arbitrary and extreme punishment for, say, an attitude problem.

In 1974, in its first big push to set some national standards for how courts should treat kids, Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which emphasized keeping nonviolent kids out of the system. States were told to stop throwing juveniles in secure detention for status offenses because these kids, lawmakers surmised, would be better served by community treatment programs, family therapy, and the like.

E.E., age 13, Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall, Los Angeles area. E.E. has been here five times for aggressive behavior. She normally lives with her mother and sister. “Me and my mom get into it a lot. It sometimes is verbal but then it gets physical,” she says. “My mom treats me bad.” Sometimes her mother kicks her out of the house, and once “she made me sleep outside with the dogs.” E.E. hopes she will be able to live with her grandmother when she gets out. If not, “they will send me to another lockdown.” Richard Ross

Funding, however, was scarce. So a lot of judges simply sent kids back home with entreaties that they do better—”don’t miss curfew again” or “stop skipping school.” If kids disobeyed these orders and ended up in court, judges had little recourse but to send them home with yet another warning, though many opted instead to bring new charges, like criminal contempt, in order to detain kids anyway, says Robert Schwartz, who co-founded the Juvenile Law Center in 1975 and ran it from 1982 to 2015.

In 1980, members of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges lobbied Congress to reinstate their formal power to send kids to detention for status offenses. Congress passed an amendment that said that if a kid disobeyed the judge’s original requests, or “valid court orders,” the judge could now put that kid in detention. Some states have since dropped the use of this loophole, but Kara’s home state of Virginia is one of 26 states that still use it, along with the District of Columbia.

As a result, the portion of juvenile detainees who are locked up for status offenses and technical violations has hovered around 25 percent. “What started as a small exception has become a loophole you can drive a truck through,” says Liz Ryan, president of Youth First, a national campaign opposing juvenile incarceration. “It’s created a pathway for kids to come into the justice system who really shouldn’t be there.”

Kara’s story also points to another issue: The juvenile justice system has a long history of judging the morals of girls differently from those of boys. The first juvenile court, established in 1899, had two lists of sins for the sexes: For girls, “frequent attendance at saloons and pool halls” and “the use of indecent language” were actionable offenses. In the ’30s and ’40s, girls were hauled into court for being in “danger of becoming morally depraved.” In the 1960s, New York let juvenile courts have jurisdiction over girls until they were 18 years old; boys aged out at 16. In the early ’70s, these kinds of gendered discrepancies were overturned in court, but that didn’t mean judges suddenly treated boys and girls equally.

Over the last 30 years, the percentage of girls in the juvenile justice system has dramatically increased, not because girls have grown more criminal, but because the system has increasingly criminalized them for things like breaking curfew or running away. Between 1995 and 2009, cases of breaking curfew rose by 23 percent for girls—and just 1 percent for boys. In 2011, girls made up 53 percent of runaway cases brought before a judge. Between 1996 and 2005, arrests for “simple assault”—which could be as minor as a daughter throwing a toy at her mom—went up 24 percent for girls and down 4 percent for boys. By 2013, girls were almost twice as likely as boys to be in detention for simple assault and certain other nonviolent offenses.

M.E., age 14 (left): “I got here yesterday. It’s my first time.” J.R., age 16 (center): “I probably get out today. I can’t wait to see my baby. He’s 10 months. He’s been with my mom since I’ve been here…My mom will come to pick me up. She is at home with my little boy.” C.J., age 14 (right): “I’ve been here 34 days. On the outs I get really good grades. How long am I here for? Long!” Richard Ross

So how did we get to this statistically unlikely place? Meda Chesney-Lind, a University of Hawaii-Manoa women’s studies professor who focuses on girls in the juvenile justice system, blames two things. The first is the practice of cops treating status offenses like more serious offenses, such as simple assault, that allow for immediate detention. And the second is “judicial paternalism.” Judges, she says, are the final step in a system that’s often stacked against girls from the start: “Parental bias morphs into police bias, which morphs into court bias.”

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2014

“Courts are more likely to open a case with girls because they don’t see what they’re doing as punishment. They see it as social work,” says Andrew Spivak, a University of Nevada-Las Vegas professor and co-author of a study on gender and the treatment of status offenders. “Courts think that they need to protect girls and give them guidance.”

Take sex and drugs: A 2007 study from California State University-Fullerton looked at more than 100 juvenile court files and found that boys’ drug use was often framed as a lifestyle choice, but girls’ drug use was presented as contributing to “criminal behaviors.” Boys’ sexual behavior was usually only recorded if it pointed to potential sex crimes such as pedophilia or violence. Not so with girls. Probation officers (in this study, mostly women) wrote notes like, “She admitted to having unprotected sex and was not interested in modifying behaviors.”

Three different studies conducted by criminologists over the last decade found that juvenile records often stereotype girls: She is “big” and “very loud.” Girls are “criers” who are “promiscuous,” “manipulative,” and “pouting.” Jeannette Pai-Espinosa, president of the National Crittenton Foundation, a nonprofit that works with at-risk girls, says, “Being ‘big’ means a girl is more of a threat.” Once this sort of coded language is in a juvenile offender’s file, it can come back to haunt her. “If there’s any kind of altercation, an officer of the court can look at the file and say, ‘Oh, she’s aggressive,’ and lock her up,” Pai-Espinosa says.

Girls line up outside their cells in Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall in Los Angeles County. Richard Ross

Of course, racial and heteronormative biases compound the problem: A 2013 study found that the likelihood of black girls being found guilty for a status offense is almost three times greater than the likelihood for white girls, and a 2015 study showed that 41 percent of LGBTQ girls in detention were there for status offenses, compared with about 35 percent of straight girls. Kara is black and gay—two facts that vastly increased her chances of being detained.

While reporting this article, I spoke to women in their 20s and 30s who’d spent a few days or even weeks in detention for actions that look like coping mechanisms, not crimes.

One of the most heartbreaking stories came from a young woman who was arrested for running away from her foster home. She had been taken from her biological family at the age of seven after child protective services found they were using a hospital emergency center as a shelter. She ran away because she wanted to see her sister. When she was 17 years old, she was arrested on an outstanding warrant and put in an adult jail with violent criminals. She was terrified. “I was just arrested, no explanation. I didn’t even see a judge,” she says.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2014

Another young woman was locked up for almost two weeks at the age of 15 after running away from her home in South Carolina. She’d been molested by one of her mother’s many boyfriends and berated for actions as trivial as doodling on notebook paper. “No one asked if there could be something wrong, a reason” for acting out, she says. She wasn’t the only one I spoke to with such a story. Nationally, more than a third of girls put in juvenile detention say they were sexually abused when they were young.

“If the reason you violated the law is because of trauma and then you’re detained, well then we have just sent you to hell and back,” says Darlene Byrne, a district court judge in Travis County, Texas, who has presided over juvenile cases for eight years. Byrne says she feels lucky that her jurisdiction offers ankle monitors to kids so she can track but not detain vulnerable children.

It has been well documented that incarcerating young people for small infractions increases the chance that they’ll get into more serious crimes as they age. Even a brief period in detention can lead to mental and physical health issues, higher unemployment rates, lower lifetime earnings, and substance abuse. The moral judgment that underlies the charges girls face can also change how they see themselves. “Once they internalize that they are ‘bad girls,'” says Pai-Espinosa, “it almost creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

That was true in Kara’s case. “The more I got in trouble, the less self-restraint I had,” she says. “I didn’t want to be locked up all the time. But the more I went, the more I felt invincible.” Her reputation around town toughened—and returning to detention began to feel inevitable.

Kara’s judges didn’t spend much time trying to understand why she was acting out. If they had, they might have discovered that she was still grieving for Ralph, or that in her neighborhood, more people ended up in prison than in college. On top of that, when she was 11, Kara also started to understand that she was attracted to girls. “I thought I was a bad person for feeling differently.”

After two detentions, when she was 16, Kara was caught with alcohol. This turned out to be a lucky break because the judge gave her more options. Kara could either spend six months in secure detention or attend drug court—where judges and counselors help offenders get off probation and stay clean. She chose drug court.

F.E., age 17 Cuyahoga County Juvenile Detention Center, Ohio. This is F.E.’s sixth incarceration since she was 13 years old. She has violated probation a number of times, most recently for fighting with her mother, who called the police. Her parents are separated. When F.E. was 12, her mother sent her to Alabama to live with her father, who she says beat her and only gave her $20 a week for food. “I told my mom how bad it was,” she says. “But she thought I was just saying that.” She began acting out, so her father kicked her out. She went to live with a friend, but her father found her, broke the door down, and beat her. She had a black eye and bruises, and her father sent her back home to Ohio, where she took Molly and Xanax. She is now in a drug program while in detention. “I am going to go to Lakewood College and then to Kent State and do a degree in psychology,” she says. “If I ever get on track.” Richard Ross

When she was locked up for probation violations, Kara had worried her grades would slip or she would lose her after-school job at a nursing home. But in her weekly meetings at court, she, her mom, a case manager, and a judge went over her school attendance, grades, behavior, and drug test results. Her drug court counselors showed her that getting scholarships to college and even law school—Kara had dreamed of becoming a lawyer since she first watched Law & Order—was possible. “It wasn’t like, ‘You messed up,’ and lock you up,” Kara says. It was, “You want to be a lawyer? You want to go to school? Let me help you fill out your applications.”

“If I’d gone to juvenile detention for those six months, there would have been no coming back,” Kara says, throwing her hands up. “I would have lost hope.” In 2008, Kara graduated from drug court; in 2013, she graduated from college; and the summer of 2016, she completed law school.

Last year, Kara worked with the public defender’s office as a legal intern—in the same juvenile court where she had been sent as a kid. Last December, when we walked into the courthouse the postman gave her a hug and the security guard flirted with her. “I know everybody,” she said with a laugh. She has faced some of the district attorneys who once prosecuted her, and she’s even argued juvenile cases before the very judge who first locked her up. It was terrifying to walk into his courtroom again, but “I always told people back at home that I would come back and be a lawyer.”

Today, juvenile and family court judges are pressuring Congress for action—this time to close the loophole they helped open. Judge Darlene Byrne says the profession has largely reversed its position because of the ample evidence proving detention hurts kids: “It’s time for the courtroom to come up to speed with the science.”

Last year, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who co-sponsored the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), invoked the evidence showing that incarceration for status offenses is ineffective. The House is set to vote on its version of Whitehouse’s Senate bill on Tuesday, and if both chambers can’t agree by the end of the year, they’ll have to start from scratch in January. So far, the bill’s success this term is up in the air. In February, the reauthorization failed to pass the Senate unanimously—which would have expedited its passage through Congress. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) opposed closing the “valid court order” loophole. On the Senate floor, he said his state’s Legislature had chosen to “retain secure confinement as a last-resort option,” and that he didn’t “believe Congress should second-guess that choice.” He didn’t add that detention in his state is not a last resort: It’s among the top five worst states in detaining low-level offenders—about a third of detained youths in Arkansas are locked up for status offenses and technical violations.

Kara knows all too well how the effects of detention can linger: She had to disclose her childhood run-ins with the court when she entered law school. During her final semester, she worried she would have to submit her juvenile record when she applied to take the bar exam. She didn’t, but she still wonders if she’ll ever shake the reputation she got when she was a kid: “I worry they will think I have a bad streak,” she says of her future colleagues. “Will people look at me and think, ‘What kind of attorney is she going to be?'”

Richard Ross’ photos first appeared in his 2015 book, Girls in Justice. For more, visit juveniles-in-justice.com.

This article was originally published in our September/October 2016 issue and has been updated.

From – 

Thousands of Girls Are Locked Up for Talking Back or Staying Out Late

Posted in alo, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, Routledge, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Thousands of Girls Are Locked Up for Talking Back or Staying Out Late

A Damning Federal Report Just Confirmed Our Worst Fears About Private Prisons

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Federal prisons run by private prison companies aren’t just less safe and less secure than than their publicly run counterparts. They’re also inadequately supervised by the federal Bureau of Prisons, which has outsourced the incarceration of 12 percent of its inmates to three giant for-profit prison companies, while allowing gaps in oversight that endangered inmates and put their rights at risk.

That’s the takeaway from a damning new report by the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General. The report, released Thursday, examined how the BOP monitored its contracts with three of the nation’s largest private prison companies: Corrections Corporation of America, the GEO Group, and Management and Training Corporation. For $639 million, these corporations run the country’s 14 private federal prisons, incarcerating around 22,660 people as of December—mainly low-security immigrants serving short sentences.

The inspector general’s findings corroborate years of reports documenting violence in private prisons, including Mother Jones reporter Shane Bauer’s immersive investigation of a CCA prison in Louisiana.

Compared to federal prisons of similar sizes, locations, and security levels, the private facilities had a 28 percent higher rate of inmate-on-inmate assaults, and more than twice as many inmate-on-staff assaults per capita between 2011 and 2014. Prison officials also found nearly twice as many weapons and eight times as many cellphones in private prisons as compared to BOP prisons, per capita. The inspector general also found that private prisons went on “lockdown” much more frequently, confining inmates to their quarters “often in response to a disturbance or incident that threatens the secure and orderly running of the prison.” The number of private prison lockdowns: 101; in BOP-run prisons: 11.

The inspector general found that least two private prisons dealt with overcrowding by automatically assigning new inmates to “special housing units”—isolation units, including solitary confinement, usually used to discipline inmates. There, they were subject to special restrictions, including “controlled movements; limited access to programs such as education or vocational programs, as well as work details; and limited telephone calls.” (According to wardens at the facilities, they had no choice. Vacant beds in solitary created the appearance of extra space at their facilities, so the BOP assigned them more inmates—and the prisons were not allowed to refuse them.)

BOP monitors, who are charged with ensuring that the private prisons are following federal policy and fulfilling the terms of their contracts, did not verify whether inmates were receiving basic medical care, according to the report. One facility went without a full-time doctor for eight months, in violation of its contract—even though the monitor reported it as being in compliance. Monitors also are not instructed to verify that private companies are conducting regular searches of housing units and visiting areas, nor are they required to confirm that the prisons are employing enough staff.

Private facilities did have fewer positive drug tests and sexual-misconduct incidents than BOP prisons, though the inspector general noted that limited or faulty data existed in both of those categories. In its response to a preliminary copy of the report, GEO Group’s executive vice president wrote that the higher incident numbers in private prisons could be explained by more diligent incident reporting than in public prisons.

The companies also claimed that elevated violence in private prisons could be attributed to their “homogenous foreign national population”—largely Mexican—resulting in a “high number of gang affiliations,” according to GEO and CCA. “Any casual reader would come to the conclusion that contract prisons are not as safe as BOP prisons,” wrote Scott Marquardt, president of MTC. “The conclusion is wrong.”

Continued here:

A Damning Federal Report Just Confirmed Our Worst Fears About Private Prisons

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Damning Federal Report Just Confirmed Our Worst Fears About Private Prisons