Who Pays for the Crime? Taxpayers do and the cost is rising

Click link below photo~

http://www.azcentral.com/video/1791640280001

Ryan says "No" to waiting for the AG's Report ~~

Arizona State Rep. Calls on AG to Investigate For-Profit Prisons

by cell-out-arizona on Aug. 10, 2012, under AFSC, Arizona, Arizona Department of Corrections, Arizona State Legislature, Corrections Corporation of America, GEO Group, Management and Training Corporation, private prison, Privatization, Public Hearings

State Legislator Chad Campbell (D-14) sent a letter two weeks ago to Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne requesting an investigation into the state’s current contracts with private, for-profit prison corporations. The letter relies heavily on the findings in AFSC’s recent report on the for-profit prison industry in Arizona, Private Prisons: The Public’s Problem.
In the letter, Campbell cites alleged violations of:

• State law and individual contract provisions requiring proposed private prisons to demonstrate cost savings to the state
• State law requiring private prisons to provide the same or better quality than state prisons
• Contract provisions requiring private prisons to maintain safety standards and rehabilitate prisoners
• State uniform contract provisions requiring private prisons to provide adequate staffing levels

A more recent Cell Out Arizona investigation revealed that the state has known for some time that its private prisons are not saving money, so it recently repealed a state law requiring the corporations to demonstrate cost savings in their bids for new contracts. The legislature also repealed another section of the same law that requires the state to conduct a Biennial Comparison Review of the quality of the state’s private prisons every two years.
Rep. Campbell is a member of the Joint Committee on Capitol Review. The objectives and major products of the staff of the JCCR are to:

• Review the scope, purpose and cost of projects before releasing appropriations.
• Approve corrections facilities expenditures from the Corrections Fund.

Rep. Campbell asserts that he and other members of the JCCR cannot achieve these objectives without the data provided by the Biennial Comparison Reports. He states in the letter,

“Recent investigations have uncovered troubling evidence that state-contracted private prisons are not providing cost savings to the state and are not providing the same or better level of quality services. Therefore, it is necessary and prudent for the Attorney General to conduct an investigation in order to provide lawmakers with the information they need to make decisions about prison expenditures.”

The situation is particularly urgent because the state of Arizona is poised to award a new contract for 2,000 more medium-security prison beds to a for-profit prison corporation. The legislature has mandated that the contract be signed by September 1st. The legislature appropriated $16 million for the prison in FY 2015.
Both Managment and Training Corporation (MTC) and GEO Group are bidding on the proposed prison. Both currently operate state prisons and would therefore be the subjects of the investigation. In addition, Corrections Corporation of America, Emerald Corrections, and LaSalle have also submitted proposals.
Arizona Department of Corrections Director Chuck Ryan was asked about the investigation last night at a public hearing for one of these prison proposals, submitted by Corrections Corporation of America for the town of Eloy. When asked whether he would suspend the procurement to await the results of the Attorney General’s investigation, he stated flatly, “no.” When asked if he would confirm, on the record, that the Department was willing to give a multi-million dollar contract to a corporation that may be violating state law and/or the terms of its current contract, he replied that he would need to consult an attorney before responding.

Broken Bridges

Society has failed us in their influence over morality and justice. The concept of reasoning and allowing us to decide what is best for all [including self interest] has dominated the political scene and has dominated the legislative agenda in many states not excluding the Congress of the federal government or the office of the President. This regression of our individual freedoms has decimated the moral fiber of this country as we cope with political correctness and corruption in order to deliver promises made but never delivered.

The political system today has been set up for sheep to follow. It is oriented around blind obedience and fear of punishment if one fails to conform to those ideas, agendas or missions stated. Creating fear by those in power, one must worry more about punishment rather than fulfillment as laws are created to inflict long and severe jail or prison sentences for those who are prosecuted by eager individuals who hold their destiny and fate in their hands.

In order to conform, people have to ask the ultimate questions. Through this self-interest goal they must say “what’s in it for me?” and “how much do I have to pay so this will benefit me?’ rather looking out for the best interest for all and those who need a helping hand to survive the hardships abound. Through time, many will jump on the bandwagon to satisfy their own greed, needs and desires through political embracement and endorsements.

This conformity to the political powers has destroyed the social norms of yesterday as interpersonal accord and harmony falls to the wayside for political favors and greed. The fact is that persons are judged on their “benefits” within society rather than their individual goodwill or contributions to society or family. We have gone from independence to interdependence on government and associated villains.

Conformity has a high price associated with it as it bring about strict authority and social order that must be enforced through elements that are designed through strict orientation or “brainwashing” techniques that is done with the justice and cause for law and order. Society is demanding you give in to your individual rights and forfeit them for the sake of the social order. They demand you comply and if you don’t you will do jail time or worse, sentenced to prison for your ideals that are revolutionary in thought to the new social norms dictated by the new order.

Today, men and women have become subject to a new set of universal ethical principles that are not in the good book. These principles counter the Ten Commandments and are designed for total control related to your thoughts and your actions. Universal Ethics is a set of principles which apply to all humans, whether secular or religious, independent from any particular faith.

Universal Ethics are a sort of Moral Constitution which is articulated as a set of specific ethical principles acceptable to all human beings. Under this ‘constitution’ all religions or secular groups can develop (or maintain) their own additional ethical principles.

This is a most extreme path  not taken in consideration by our founding fathers when they set up the United States Constitution.  Every day, the courts are diluting our rights under our Constitution and eventual demise of our civil rights as we have fought for, died for will extinguish under this new social order imposed to us by a minority but a minority that has both the power and the money to make the new social order a reality and implement the new moral constitution to implement their own principles and not those guaranteed by the Constitution.

Kill Orders ~ a satire of $50 million dollar prison folly

“Kill Orders”

A Satire of a $50 million dollar Prison Folly

In the beginning of February, 2009, the Arizona Department of Corrections issued a new decree called the “Kill Decree” which directed that every incarcerated prisoner who had not been put to work should be on a hit list and handed over to selected staff to be treated with negligence, punished and confined with orders to isolate them and keep them at the most restrictive custody level available. 

This order was distributed via the quarterly warden’s meetings and memos originating in their regional offices. These targeted individuals were to be sent to the maximum custody units to isolate and control their behaviors.

In October 2009, detention units statewide were overcrowded with those prisoners targeted for this decree and efforts were made to house them at various special management units as they were being housed triple or four with two in the bunks and two on the floors. Double bunking became a priority and beds were installed inside small concrete boxes to accommodate the additional prisoners.

The main issues at hand were prisoners refusing to house because of political, racial or gang related problems covered under the protective segregation policy but ignored or delayed thus forcing them to house on yards with known enemies.

Their bodies infringed encumbered space provided for those on the bunks and conflicts would often arise regarding the invasion of privacy and disrespect of personal property or space. Violence increased and staff also became targets of this frustrated target group that knew they were headed for the isolation and control units per their destiny under the “Kill Decree”.

Soon the violence was out of control and staffs were ordered not to interfere with these serious and violent assaults. Additionally, administrators were informed that no one [prisoners] should be prosecuted for taking part in these assaults that sometimes resulted in serious injuries or death. The stage was set to create a most violent and predatory gladiator arena that would be uncontrolled yet sanctioned by those in power.

The treatment of prisoners began to be characterized by elements of a particular inhumanity. The death of so many of them was not merely because of the inaction of individual correctional officers but because of the “Kill Decree” and the cultural indifference it created towards the preservation of life and dignity for human beings. The value of a human life had been diminished into a number and not a face or being.

Through the systematic plans to kill, eliminate or reduce legitimate  inmate work programs, the inmate suicide prevention aide program and other incentive / capacity programs, the administration made sure that any reformative programs were killed or stopped so that those idle inmates would be targeted for the purpose designed under the “Kill Decree”.

Although there were organized plans to continue to fill  certain [but reduced] programs to capacity, the decree denied funding, staffing and time for such activities and killed any efforts to revive incentive based programs that would enhance the prisoner’s ability to provide better pay and enhanced privileges established as policy by fore the “Kill Decree”.

Incentive programs were systematically diminished as the criteria for qualifying for certain jobs and programs became more stringent and with less priority. These programs were essentially phased out due to lack of finding prisoners that did not qualify under the new guidelines as inmate employment rules were changed to reduce hours and wages worked for those employed.

In April of 2010, the food regulations changed and meals were altered for weekends and holidays. A brief strike by prisoners resulted in no concessions by the administration but rather more regulations were issued to control behavior and dissent of policies.

The orders consisted of zero tolerance for violence resulted in more prisoners being locked up for detention as resistance was broken as an energetic action plan was devised to increase beds at the maximum custody units for all these ruthless, violent and insubordinate prisoners that were locked down when any of them demonstrated even the slightest indication of resisting or protesting living conditions due to the double bunking and decrease in staffing to provide a safe and secure living or work environment.

Labeled gangsters, extremists, fanatics or problematic in nature, they continued to be transferred to higher custody levels for isolation and control. Employees were encouraged to use every tool on the use of force continuum to control prisoner’s behaviors. In addition, the disciplinary process for prisoners were modified to give the administration more control and more discretion on summaries and findings. The inconsistencies in this order created confusion for anyone carrying out this order not to use their weapons or force with insufficient energy or effort thus making it punishable for anyone to disregard this decree and subject to administrative disciplinary as well as other sanctions.

Finally, as a result of this kill order, prisoners were left without due process for disciplinary or classification processes. Their rights were being rationalized into channels that provided no genuine appeal or re-consideration in those matters at hand. They were also left without suitable medical care, sufficient personal uniform clothing, nutritional supplements and mental health care, and in some cases, left to die.

The mission to entrap and declare these prisoners to be housed at a higher custody level was intensified as efforts through politically motivated investigations at all complexes resulted in the use of persons convicted of crimes to serve as confidential informants on other prisoners and staff. These snitches were common among gang Debriefers and others willing to serve this role.

Further, the wardens were encouraged to seek out among the prisoner elements those who appear reliable and advised to use them for intelligence gathering inside each prison and use them as informers by using all existing possibilities to isolate and control those targeted under the “Kill Decree”.

By the use of these informers more prisoners were targeted and the beds at the maximum custody units began to swell with the need to add more beds in the immediate future. These beds would suffice to house those revolutionaries or leading personalities that have expressed resistance or defiance of the “Kill Decree” and found to be agitators or disruptive groups by the administration.

Ironically, the Arizona Department of Corrections has asked and received $ 50 million dollars for the expansion of maximum custody beds that was created by this parody or sketch outlining what may be actual events along with inferences based on anecdotal results found today inside the Arizona prison system.

This folly was created by a self-fulfilling prophecy that was in reality legitimately designed by the German Army many decades ago in World War II and used on prisoners of war.

The only exception to this parody is the fact there were actual cases where prisoners of war were mistreated as human beings. They were executed for no reasons other than taking up space inside their prison camps and not being able bodied to work or do anything productive for the German regime in power at the time and occupying foreign countries taking millions of people prisoner and incarcerate them under terrible war camp conditions.

A Correctional Officer’s Nightmare: Inmate Informants

Correctional Officers remain our last line of defense within the criminal justice system. They stand watch over our convicted felons and do a job nobody else wants to do or contemplate applying for because of the potential dangers and the environment they would be working in. working inside the penitentiary is not a glamorous job to say the least. In fact, it is sometimes one of the worst jobs one could think of taking but with the economy and the jobless rate climbing, this remains to be a premier choice for returning war veterans, college grads, those laid off and those looking to get into law enforcement.

Part of this job includes ethical and competent performance standards. There is no room for error and every decision can be fatal or flawed where someone either gets hurt or worse, killed. The stress inside there is extremely high and coping with society’s rejects is time consuming and frustrating. The job, however, requires and demands perfection and compliance with all laws, policies and procedures at all times whether on duty or off duty.

Errors in judgments or actions are often translated into misconduct. Misconduct usually results in disciplinary or at the very least, an investigative process that must be sound and fair to ensure both factual and accurate information is gleaned in the process. This investigative tool has been abused by the administration for years as they engage into a process called inmate informants. Unfortunately there are a minority of correctional or detention officers that are corrupt and abusive in their assigned role as peacekeeper inside our penitentiaries.

Located within most jails and prisons are intelligence gathering teams or criminal investigators [units] commonly referred to as internal affairs. It is their job to act on tips or information on crimes committed and gang activity within their scope of responsibility. Today they are engaged in a most flawed practice that uses inmate confidential informants (CI) to find out what is going on behind the razor wire and high walls.

Their protocol is sometimes questionable and their motive should be uncertain as they work closely with inmates to make their cases against staff or other prison employees. Allegations are often unfounded and biased but regardless of these flaws, they carry their weight in the investigation to destroy an officer’s reputation or morale. Confidential informants are rampant throughout the correctional environment. They thrive on rumors, innuendoes or other gossip to spill the beans of what is perceived to be a personal biased effort to degrade or humiliate correctional employees who stand to be punished or even terminated from such a source even if the case is weak or unsustainable in a court of law.

Confidential informant’s allegations are echoed throughout many correctional facilities decimating morale and the fairness of many disciplinary procedures. This information is mishandled by those who engage in this practice and is used to gain access to information that would otherwise be difficult to attain because of the code of silence that exists within most prison and jail settings.

There are times where the accused may never know their accusers. The manner confidential information is handled is more secret and discreet than the manner an officer’s individual record is revealed or evaluated as well as any statement made by a fellow officer.  The reason investigators chose to use informants is based on the fact that officers who report their colleagues or co workers are often ostracized, intimidated and sometimes harmed by their fellow officers once it is made known they made a statement against a fellow officer.  Although very seldom rising to this level, it is a most convenient reason for investigators to use CI willing to do the dirty work rather than pursuing the case through interviews of staff and coworkers.

Secondary reasons given for using informants is the fact that once a statement is made,[whether verbal or written] it becomes very difficult for the investigator to catch the officer in the act thus making it almost impossible to bring him or her up for charges of misconduct?

Hence the shortcut taken to use confidential informants was brought to the table and sanctioned by those in charge of these correctional facilities. The danger of investigator and convicted felon to “bond” can jeopardize many cases and distort the truth. Deals made under the table are hardly legitimate when the cost is the career and reputation of an officer who stands to lose everything they worked for during their entire career.

This entire practice is flawed and leads one to conclude that those suspected of committing crimes inside jails or prisons can and will be set up by these confidential informants that carry the weight of being reliable and truthful for the investigators in charge of the case. The manner many cases are handled are grounds for suspicion and doubt that these cases are made on subjective materials and observations from a confidential informant that has everything to gain for telling lies and offer flawed testimony to “burn” an officer doing his or her job.

The bottom line is the matter of guilt is rarely established by using confidential information or informants. What is most damaging is the fact that once you are brought up for allegations of misconduct, this will never be erased from your record and you are ruined for your entire career leaving many no choice but to leave and try to work again in another place away from the “heat” created by confidential informants who work for both incentives and pleasure while burning officers at the stake for the sake of “justice” inside the penitentiary or jail.

Administrative tools should not include the use of confidential informants. If the investigative process was conducted appropriately and according to the rules set forth in many organization, this would improve morale and adjust the quality of fact finding in those places where corrupt staff are a problem but are properly identified through a process that is objective rather than subjective in nature.

Part II, Arizona for Profit Prison Politics

Cell-Out Arizona Exclusive, Part II: Arizona For-Profit Prison Costs Rose14%; Now Guarantee 100% Occupancy

by cell-out-arizona on Aug. 03, 2012, under AFSC, Arizona, Arizona Department of Corrections, Corrections Corporation of America, GEO Group, Management and Training Corporation, private prison, Privatization

In Part I, we revealed that state officials have known for some time that proposed for-profit prisons will not save the state money. We referred to a state law, now partially repealed, that requires for-profit prison corporations to demonstrate cost savings during the competitive bidding process before a contract is awarded.
But once they’re built, the law does not provide any penalty for failure to actually save the state money. So in essence, the for-profit prison corporations can promise us the moon, but there’s nothing to ensure that they will deliver on those promises.
And indeed, they haven’t. Cost comparison studies have consistently shown that Arizona is losing money on private prisons—an average of $3.5 million per year, according to an AFSC analysis.
The cost of a private prison contract is calculated through the “per-diem payment.” This is the amount that Arizona agrees to pay the corporation to house one prisoner for one day. But contracts with for-profit prison operators are renegotiated or amended regularly, often annually. And those per-diem rates invariably increase.
An analysis of the state’s three oldest private prison contracts, (1) With GEO Group for Florence West, (2) With GEO Group for Phoenix West, and (3) with Management and Training Corporation (MTC) for Marana Community Correctional Treatment Facility, shows that the per diem rates for regular (non-emergency) beds in these facilities increased an average of 13.9% since the contracts were awarded, as demonstrated in the chart below.

Facility/Unit	Initial Per Diem	Current Per Diem	Increase, in Dollars	Percent Increase
Phoenix West	$43.77	$49.28	$7.49	17.9%
Florence West, DUI	$49.55	$55.79	$6.24	12.6%
Florence West, RTC	$39.95	$44.98	$5.03	12.5%
Marana	$43.54	$49.03	$5.49	12.6%
AVERAGE INCREASE			$6.06	13.9%

These records, obtained through a public records request, also show that these contracts were more recently amended to promise 100% occupancy of these private prisons.
Beginning in 2008 with Phoenix West, the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) began working out new agreements in which the corporations agreed to a lower per-diem payment for ‘emergency beds’ (intended to temporarily absorb system overflow), from an average of $30.46 to $10.00 for Florence West and Phoenix West and from $25.10 to $12.60 for Marana.
In exchange for this concession, Arizona agreed to a guaranteed 100% occupancy for all the beds in all three facilities, including the much more expensive “rated beds.” The average per diem rate for these beds is $49.07.
In the cases of the two GEO prisons (Phoenix and Florence West), a 2010 amendment later lowered the guaranteed occupancy for the emergency beds to 95%, but left in place the 100% occupancy rate for the more expensive rated beds.
Amendment 14 for Marana (signed on June 6, 2011) has an additional, more interesting provision. The documents refer to a “dispute” between the Department of Corrections and for-profit operator MTC as to whether or not the 5-year contract renewal was done in a timely manner (ADC says yes, MTC apparently said no). The negotiated settlement of this dispute consolidates 450 rated beds with 50 emergency beds into a total of 500 rated beds. These 500 beds will carry a guaranteed occupancy of 100% at a rate of $49.03 per prisoner, per day.
What’s more, this agreement was applied retroactively to October 6, 2010, effectively erasing all but three months of the reduced emergency bed per diem in the previous amendment (from July 2010). It also guaranteed that Arizona would continue to pay about three times as much for the emergency beds. In essence, ADC is handing over four years’ worth of extra money to keep MTC happy.
How much money? In the July 2010 contract amendment for the facility, the state had bargained the emergency beds down to a $12.60 per diem. Now they will be paying $49.03 per diem for the same beds. Which means that MTC is raking in an extra $36.43 per prisoner, per day. Multiply by 50 such beds, and MTC will make additional profits of $664,847.50 per year– a total of $2,659,390 through the remainder of the contract, which expires in October of 2013. Not bad!
Allow us to pause here to remember that MTC is the corporation whose negligence led to the horrific escapes from the Kingman prison in the summer of 2010, resulting in the murder of a couple vacationing in New Mexico. Yeah, that MTC.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, it appears that Arizona is looking to cut MTC loose, at least from managing the Marana prison (they still manage two units at Kingman, for which they have a guaranteed occupancy rate of 97%). The final component of this contract amendment is an agreement that Arizona will buy the Marana prison back from MTC in October of 2013 for the tidy sum of $150,000. You can insert your own jokes about ‘short sales’ here.

ADOC Director ignored state laws on private prison costs

Cell-Out Arizona Exclusive: Documents Show Arizona Officials Knew Private Prisons Weren’t Saving Money

by cell-out-arizona on Jul. 24, 2012, under AFSC, Arizona Department of Corrections, Arizona State Legislature, Corrections Corporation of America, GEO Group, Lobbyists, Management and Training Corporation, private prison, Privatization, SB 1070

Documents recently obtained by the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) show that the state of Arizona deliberately circumvented and ultimately repealed a state law requiring private for-profit prison corporations to demonstrate cost savings in their bids on new prison contracts. These records reveal that the state was aware that existing private prison contracts were not saving the state money–despite state laws requiring private prison contractors to deliver such savings.
One such statute, ARS 41-1609.01 (G), previously stated:

“A proposal shall not be accepted unless the proposal offers cost savings to this state. Cost savings shall be determined based upon the standard cost comparison model for privatization established by the Director.”http://tucsoncitizen.com/cell-out-arizona/2012/07/24/cell-out-arizona-exclusive-documents-show-arizona-officials-knew-private-prisons-werent-saving-money/