sweetmaxy
10-27-2004, 04:04 PM
This article is from a paper in the UK. To give you an ideal how others view what's going on here in California.
Prisons and profit don't mix
British prison officers are right to resist a trend that helps maintain a medieval system of punishment in California
Duncan Campbell
Tuesday October 26, 2004
The Guardian
One might imagine that prison officers the world over have much in common. They all have to do the difficult job of locking up the people whom societies and governments have decided, rightly or wrongly, should be confined. But over the past week prison officers here in Britain and far away in California have been engaged in two very different and conflicting enterprises, both of which could have great repercussions.
The Prison Officers Association in Britain last week voted overwhelmingly against the government's plans to "market test" our prisons, which they believe could lead to the increased privatisation of our prison system. With a 70% turnout, they decided by 87% to 13% not to take part in the "market testing" that the prison department wants to introduce next year and which could take more prisons in to the private sector. The POA's general secretary, Brian Caton, warned that industrial action was on the cards if the government continued with its plans.
Over in California, the union that represents prison officers, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, is also heavily engaged in a political battle. But the officers there are on a very different side of the razor-wire fence. They are spending their members' money in a desperate bid to defeat a measure which will go before the California voters on November 2, the day of the presidential elections.
The measure, Proposition 66, concerns the so-called Three Strikes Law which was introduced a decade ago in response to the violent murder of a young girl by a criminal who had committed more than three offences. The aim of the law, as originally proposed, was that violent reoffenders should have to serve a minimum of 25 years if they committed three crimes. However, in an emotionally charged climate, a harsher version of the law was passed that affected minor, non-violent re-offenders too. The result is that more than 4,000 non-violent offenders are now serving 25-year minimums. One shoplifter is serving a 50-year sentence for stealing some videos and there are many other similarly inappropriate sentences, disproportionately being served by African Americans and members of ethnic minorities.
Advertiser links
Need a Car Loan? Bad Credit Specialists
Shopping for a new or used car? Our 60-second free...
instantcarloan.com
Auto Loans Fast, Nationwide Approval
Nationwide approvals for car loans. Bad credit, bankruptcy...
autospecialfinance.org
Fast Auto Loans for Bad Credit
Qualify for a bad credit car loan online in 30 seconds...
fundingway.com
Gradually, the injustice of this system has become known to Californian voters, and next week they will have a chance to amend the law so that it applies to violent rather than to minor, non-violent offenders. This would inevitably cut the number of people in prison there. The prison officers thus see their jobs threatened. To this end, their union is frantically trying to ensure that this medieval system of punishment remains, publishing inflammatory and inaccurate material about the measure. The prison officers' union was the biggest single financial backer of the former governor Gray Davis who obligingly kept the three strikes law in place.
Disappointingly, the current governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has also shown himself to be unwilling to take on this powerful union and their friends in the prison business. Despite this, next week Californian voters could well pass Proposition 66, which limits the application of the "three strikes gets you 25 years" principle to violent offenders. (And far be it from any pointed-headed, lily-livered, interfering limey commentator to urge any on-line readers resident in that wonderful state to vote Yes on Proposition 66.)
There is a prison-industrial complex in California, as elsewhere in the US, and it is seeking to expand into this country. Small communities with high unemployment may welcome the building of a prison that provides jobs. What the battle over Proposition 66 demonstrates is the danger of introducing the profit motive into the criminal justice system.
Countless lives in California have been ruined by the combination of this ill-conceived law and a prison system motivated by profit. The POA in Britain is right to resist the spread of the private prison system here, even if in doing so may not be motivated by what has happened in California. The case against prison privatisation was put very eloquently in 1993 by a young shadow home secretary called Tony Blair. He said then: "I believe that people who are sentenced by the state to imprisonment should be deprived of their liberty, kept under lock and key by those who are accountable primarily and solely to the state." As the POA's Duncan Keys said this week, Labour came to power committed to fighting the continued privatisation of the system. "Prisons should not be run for profit," he said. "They [the government] have done a 180-degree turn since they came into office. Enough is enough."
With our record prison population, the government is inevitably looking for ways to lock people up on the cheap. Private prisons, with their lower paid staffs, offer a tempting alternative, and we already have, with 10 jails, the most privatised prison system in Europe. Next year's plan to make state prisons compete with private companies could well lead to an increase in this number. While some of the innovations of the private system may be welcome, there is no reason why they could not be incorporated into the state system. As the Prison Reform Trust concludes in a paper on private prisons that it will publish next month, there still needs to be a far wider public debate on the issue. The PRT's Geoff Dobson said this week: "We take the view that it is unethical to make a profit from incarceration, and that to do so necessarily builds inflationary pressures into the system."
What has happened in California should be a reminder that there is something inherently immoral in any system where jails have to be kept full for reasons of economy rather than justice.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1336140,00.html
Prisons and profit don't mix
British prison officers are right to resist a trend that helps maintain a medieval system of punishment in California
Duncan Campbell
Tuesday October 26, 2004
The Guardian
One might imagine that prison officers the world over have much in common. They all have to do the difficult job of locking up the people whom societies and governments have decided, rightly or wrongly, should be confined. But over the past week prison officers here in Britain and far away in California have been engaged in two very different and conflicting enterprises, both of which could have great repercussions.
The Prison Officers Association in Britain last week voted overwhelmingly against the government's plans to "market test" our prisons, which they believe could lead to the increased privatisation of our prison system. With a 70% turnout, they decided by 87% to 13% not to take part in the "market testing" that the prison department wants to introduce next year and which could take more prisons in to the private sector. The POA's general secretary, Brian Caton, warned that industrial action was on the cards if the government continued with its plans.
Over in California, the union that represents prison officers, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, is also heavily engaged in a political battle. But the officers there are on a very different side of the razor-wire fence. They are spending their members' money in a desperate bid to defeat a measure which will go before the California voters on November 2, the day of the presidential elections.
The measure, Proposition 66, concerns the so-called Three Strikes Law which was introduced a decade ago in response to the violent murder of a young girl by a criminal who had committed more than three offences. The aim of the law, as originally proposed, was that violent reoffenders should have to serve a minimum of 25 years if they committed three crimes. However, in an emotionally charged climate, a harsher version of the law was passed that affected minor, non-violent re-offenders too. The result is that more than 4,000 non-violent offenders are now serving 25-year minimums. One shoplifter is serving a 50-year sentence for stealing some videos and there are many other similarly inappropriate sentences, disproportionately being served by African Americans and members of ethnic minorities.
Advertiser links
Need a Car Loan? Bad Credit Specialists
Shopping for a new or used car? Our 60-second free...
instantcarloan.com
Auto Loans Fast, Nationwide Approval
Nationwide approvals for car loans. Bad credit, bankruptcy...
autospecialfinance.org
Fast Auto Loans for Bad Credit
Qualify for a bad credit car loan online in 30 seconds...
fundingway.com
Gradually, the injustice of this system has become known to Californian voters, and next week they will have a chance to amend the law so that it applies to violent rather than to minor, non-violent offenders. This would inevitably cut the number of people in prison there. The prison officers thus see their jobs threatened. To this end, their union is frantically trying to ensure that this medieval system of punishment remains, publishing inflammatory and inaccurate material about the measure. The prison officers' union was the biggest single financial backer of the former governor Gray Davis who obligingly kept the three strikes law in place.
Disappointingly, the current governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has also shown himself to be unwilling to take on this powerful union and their friends in the prison business. Despite this, next week Californian voters could well pass Proposition 66, which limits the application of the "three strikes gets you 25 years" principle to violent offenders. (And far be it from any pointed-headed, lily-livered, interfering limey commentator to urge any on-line readers resident in that wonderful state to vote Yes on Proposition 66.)
There is a prison-industrial complex in California, as elsewhere in the US, and it is seeking to expand into this country. Small communities with high unemployment may welcome the building of a prison that provides jobs. What the battle over Proposition 66 demonstrates is the danger of introducing the profit motive into the criminal justice system.
Countless lives in California have been ruined by the combination of this ill-conceived law and a prison system motivated by profit. The POA in Britain is right to resist the spread of the private prison system here, even if in doing so may not be motivated by what has happened in California. The case against prison privatisation was put very eloquently in 1993 by a young shadow home secretary called Tony Blair. He said then: "I believe that people who are sentenced by the state to imprisonment should be deprived of their liberty, kept under lock and key by those who are accountable primarily and solely to the state." As the POA's Duncan Keys said this week, Labour came to power committed to fighting the continued privatisation of the system. "Prisons should not be run for profit," he said. "They [the government] have done a 180-degree turn since they came into office. Enough is enough."
With our record prison population, the government is inevitably looking for ways to lock people up on the cheap. Private prisons, with their lower paid staffs, offer a tempting alternative, and we already have, with 10 jails, the most privatised prison system in Europe. Next year's plan to make state prisons compete with private companies could well lead to an increase in this number. While some of the innovations of the private system may be welcome, there is no reason why they could not be incorporated into the state system. As the Prison Reform Trust concludes in a paper on private prisons that it will publish next month, there still needs to be a far wider public debate on the issue. The PRT's Geoff Dobson said this week: "We take the view that it is unethical to make a profit from incarceration, and that to do so necessarily builds inflationary pressures into the system."
What has happened in California should be a reminder that there is something inherently immoral in any system where jails have to be kept full for reasons of economy rather than justice.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1336140,00.html