FLORENCE, Ariz. — It is a dangerous place to patrol, and Arizona spends $4.7 million each year to house inmates such as Hausner in a super-maximum-security prison. But in a first in the criminal-justice world, the state’s death-row inmates could become the responsibility of a private company. State officials soon will seek bids from private companies for nine of the state’s 10 prison complexes that house roughly 40,000 inmates, including the 127 on death row. It is the first attempt by a state to put its entire prison system under private control. The privatization effort, in its breadth and aggressive financial goals, demonstrates what states — broke, desperate and often overburdened with prisoners and their associated costs — are willing to do to balance the books. Arizona officials hope the effort will put a $100 million dent in the state’s roughly $2 billion budget shortfall.
“Let’s not kid ourselves,” said Andy Biggs, a Republican in the state Legislature who supports private prisons. “If we were not in this economic environment, I don’t think we’d be talking about this with the same sense of urgency.”
Private prison companies generally build facilities for a state and charge per prisoner to run them. But under the Arizona legislation, a vendor would pay $100 million upfront to operate one or more prison complexes. Assuming the company could operate the prisons more cheaply or efficiently than the state, any savings would be equally divided between the state and the firm. The privatization move has raised questions about the ability of the private sector to handle the state’s most hardened criminals. While executions would be performed by the state, officials said, the Department of Corrections would relinquish all other day-to-day operations to the private operator and pay a per-diem fee for each prisoner.
The federal government, with a surge of new immigrant inmates, also contracts with firms. The number of federal prisoners in private prisons in the U.S. has more than doubled, to 32,712 in 2008 from 15,524 in 2000. The number of state prisoners in privately run prisons has increased to 93,500 from 75,000 in that time.
We are one step closer to a Death Row Reality Show.
Fast track the appeals process of these death row inmates and that will reduce the overcrowding of prisoners who are on death row. It should never take ten years or more for the appeals process.
#21 I’ll agree with that as soon as we come up with a way to bring them back from the dead when we find we’ve executed an innocent man. That’s been happening more and more lately.
It would be far more cost efficient to keep them in jail for life. At least that way we can let them go if we find out they got the wrong guy.
#8 Faxon the poop flinger sez:
Here’s my plan. Since Mexico loves sending us their poor people to take advantage of our system, make Mexico house and feed all of the prisoners in the border states. At least then, we would be getting something for the millions and millions of dollars the criminal border crossers cost us.
I know you’re just flingin’ poop, Faxon, but for the people who really believe this: The lazy Mexicans are the ones back home sitting in their villages. The ones who make it to America are the ones with the strongest work ethic. And they’re the ones picking your produce, mowing your lawns, busing your table, even building your houses, for less than minimum wage, so you can get all those things for cheaper. All while you complain about “lazy” Mexicans.
#19, Where have I heard this before… oh, right: “Putting health care in the hands of for-profit companies will reduce the cost!”
Same old song, same old result. Any money saved from efficiencies will go directly to the profits of the private corporations, and there will be NO savings to the taxpayers.
You are correct. Just look at the number of agencies it takes to keep those “private” companies in business!
medical licensing laws
mandatory health insurance
FDA
Department of Health and Human Services
Medicare
Medicaid
SCHIP
National Institutes of Health
the war on drugs
restrictions on the sale of medical devices
federal laboratories
federal funding of community health centers
federal grants for medical research
federal funding of clinical trials
federal funding for family planning
community rating laws
mandated insurance coverages
medical record requirements
federal databases of medical records
import quotas on sugar and corn subsidies that together encourage the use of HFCS
special privileges for the AMA or Big Pharma
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act which forces hospitals to treat anyone regardless of their ability to pay
restrictions on a free market in organs
federal nutrition guidelines
federal vaccination programs
HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives
AIDS funding for Africa
And let’s not forget the government mandates, controls, or regulations of any kind on physicians, dentists, nurses, midwives, psychiatrists, psychologists, hospitals, pharmacists, insurance companies, nursing homes, drug companies, or practitioners of holistic, chiropractic, homeopathic, nutritional, or and other form of alternative medicine.
Wooh! I’m glad my government is there watching out for me!
#23, This is what happens when you set price controls — a black market is created.
In this case, the price control is on the labor market and a black market in labor thus springs up.
Ya know, LL, I’d be a lot more impressed if you did a little research on how and why these regulatory agencies that you hate came into being. And then you could try to convince us of how much better life would be if they were all abolished, and automakers could make cars as unsafe as they wanted, food makers could cut corners on safety and sell us tainted food, drug makers could sell drugs without testing them completely, etc., etc. Libertarian paradise!
#26, Ya know, LL, I’d be a lot more impressed
No, you wouldn’t. You wouldn’t know freedom if it jumped up and bit you on the ass. No amount of proof will convince you.
I’m talking those with open minds
Still playing John Galt, I see. Well, everyone’s gotta have a hobby.
#28, Nope. Greenspan is. Nice job he did on the economy
#23 Phydeau “The ones who make it to America are the ones with the strongest work ethic. And they’re the ones picking your produce, mowing your lawns, busing your table, even building your houses, for less than minimum wage, so you can get all those things for cheaper. All while you complain about ‘lazy’ Mexicans.”
At no point did Flaxon call Mexicans lazy. He called them poor. If you think it is okay to cheat workers out of their fair wage because they are only illegal Mexicans, then I question your morals. You never met a government program you don’t like, but you oppose any regulations on who can enter this country. There should be an orderly regulation regarding immigration instead of violating of the law in order to pay people below minimum wage.
#30 Faxon said “At least then, we would be getting something for the millions and millions of dollars the criminal border crossers cost us.”
My point is that they provide more value than they cost. If all the illegal Mexican (and other) immigrants went away, we’d have to pay much higher wages to Americans to do these shit jobs. And our produce, houses, roads, and everything else they work on would cost more.
And spare me the outrage over cheating workers. We all know what the story is. Americans turn a blind eye to the plight of undocumented workers because they work for cheap. And we love cheap. We could solve the problem immediately: heavy fines for companies that hire illegals. But then they would be forced to hire Americans at American wages, and their costs and prices would immediately go way up.
Americans are hypocrites on this issue. We should either accept hiring illegals at poverty wages and stop wringing our hands over it, or stop hiring them and accept the higher prices that come with American workers.
And btw, Republicans love paying people below the minimum wage, so your pious concern is totally unconvincing, coming from a wingnut. It’s us liberals who want to pay people a minimum wage. And if I had my druthers, I’d levy the big fines on the companies for hiring illegals, force them to hire Americans at reasonable wages. Republicans (and their owners, the big corporations) hate the idea of paying a reasonable wage.
Though I have to say, I can’t blame the Republicans completely… the American public is at fault too. If you asked the average supermarket shopper to choose between a package of lettuce for $3 picked by illegal immigrants or one for $5 picked by Americans, I bet most of them would pick the cheaper one.
#30/31, Here are the top 10 recipients of bribes ^K^K^K^K^K^Kdonations from Agri-Business.
John McCain $757,247
Saxby Chambliss $422,219
Devin Nunes $317,243
Jerry Moran $161,861
Mitch McConnell $160,050
Rep Total $1,818,620
Barack Obama $417,323
Robert Berry $251,550
Jim Costa $223,119
John Kerry $213,851
Collin Peterson $162,421
Dem Total $1,268,264
The republicans are definitely in the lead but the democrats are certainly not clean on this.
#31 Phydeau, “And spare me the outrage over cheating workers. We all know what the story is. Americans turn a blind eye to the plight of undocumented workers because they work for cheap. And we love cheap. We could solve the problem immediately: heavy fines for companies that hire illegals. But then they would be forced to hire Americans at American wages, and their costs and prices would immediately go way up.”
I agree that that is the answer. Businesses would have to pay to buy machines that would make those jobs safer and easier to do. Americans will do those jobs if they paid a fair wage.
My problem with minimum wage increases is that they are inflationary. That is a separate issue from people paying illegals below minimum wage.
We had a meat packing plant raided in my state. When they reopened, there was a line of Americans about a mile long trying to get the jobs that the deported illegals had held. Don’t talk to me about jobs Americans won’t do.
Food, as a percentage of income, is pretty cheap in this country. Companies that break the law should not get an advantage over companies that do not.
#31 Phydeau, “And btw, Republicans love paying people below the minimum wage, so your pious concern is totally unconvincing, coming from a wingnut.”
BTW, I don’t vote for people based on an R or D by their name. I vote based on how I believe these individuals will govern. Yes, I vote for individuals candidates from one party more than the other, but I do not vote based on party. There is right and their is wrong and I still think it is wrong to exploit illegals by paying them less than minimum wage.
Well I’m with you on the exploiting illegals issue, Benjamin. And food has gone way down in price over the years. Perhaps too much, if we need illegals working poverty wages to keep the prices that low.
And yes, LL, big biz is naturally a better fit with the R’s but they back the winner too.
#36, And food has gone way down in price over the years.
I’m not sure I agree with that. I purchase food for groups of people on a regular basis. The price is definitely going up, not down.
Heck, the cost of a hamburger at McD’s is twice what it was 10 years ago.
#37 Actually what I read was looking at a time span of decades. I have no doubt that in recent years costs are going up. But the articles said that 50 years ago we spent a third of our budget on food, now it’s closer to 10%.
#38, I agree we are spending a smaller percentage.
Here is a good chart showing what I was talking about. Prices are going up. Unfortunately, our wages aren’t keeping up.
http://tinyurl.com/yh97oll