|
BACKGROUND: The place of Homeland Security's Tacoma Tideflats
prison in the bigger picture
Written by Mark Jensen
Tuesday, 17 February 2004
Some pieces recently published in Prison Privatisation Report
International suggest how the Homeland Security prison soon to opened in
the Tacoma Tideflats and managed by a private company called the
Correctional Services Corporation of Sarasota is part of a bigger
picture....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.ufppc.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=223&Itemid=2
THE PLACE OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S TACOMA TIDEFLATS PRISON IN THE
BIGGER PICTURE
By Mark Jensen
February 17, 2004
Below are a few pieces relating to the Homeland Security prison that
will soon be opening in the Tacoma Tideflats, to be managed by the
Correctional Services Corporation (CSC) of Sarasota, Florida. None of
them mention the "Northwest Detention Center," as it is to be called,
but they help set it in a larger context, and even suggest ways in which
it is linked to the policies that led us into war in Iraq.
All these pieces were published in recent months in Prison Privatisation
Report International (PPRI), which is published bi-monthly in England at
the University of Greenwich with support from George Soros's Foundation
Open Society Institute. PPRI is published by the Public Services
International Research Unit, which monitors privatization of public
services worldwide.
The pieces below from PPRI report:
-- that the U.S. government has ambitious plans for apprehending and
deporting massive numbers of illegal aliens in the next five years[1];
-- that funds amounting to $10 million for sending U.S. private
prison-building experts to Iraq for six months (at $100,000 per expert)
were included in the Bush administration's late summer 2003 request for
$20.3 billion toward rebuilding Iraq[2];
-- that Correctional Services Corp. (CSC) was ordered last year by a
Texas court to pay $35 million plus $5.1 million in punitive damages in
a case involving the death of an 18-year-old who fell ill but was denied
treatment while in the corporation's care[3];
-- that CSC was being investigated by the New York State Board of
Elections for providing unreported help to the campaigns of politicians
in New York[4];
-- that in April 2003 Southern Catholic Bishops issued a statement
calling for an end to all private prisons on the grounds that they are
"not consistent with the need for our prisons to respect the human
dignity of each and every person"[5];
-- that in early 2003 CSC was once again fined for over-contributing to
politicians, this time being required to pay $300,000 in civil fine for
failure to disclose gifts it made to New York politicians who helped the
company obtain millions of dollars worth of business[6];
-- that a May 2002 Harvard Law Review article touting the virtues of
private prisons turned out to have been indirectly funded by
conservative libertarian think tanks[7];
-- and that a new organization dedicated to fighting prison
privatization called "Citizens Against Private Prisons of North America
(CAPP)" was formed in July 2002[8].
--
1.
FEDERAL BAIL OUT FOR PRIVATE PRISON INDUSTRY CONTINUES
Prison Privatisation Report International
No. 59 (December 2003)
http://www.psiru.org/justice/ppri59.htm#United States
While states suffer from revenue shortfalls and some revise their
corrections strategies away from incarceration (see FAMM report, page
14), private prison operators who need incarceration rates to grow can
continue to seek solace from the federal government, (see PPRI # 58 &
38).
In September attorney general John Ashcroft ordered prosecutors to seek
the most serious possible charges for almost all federal cases. More
recently, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it wants
additional prison bed space to hold up to 8,000 suspected illegal
immigrants per day. The current detainee population is around 22,000 and
security officials want to catch 400,000 of the supposed 8 million-11
million illegal immigrants in the US. The government aims to apprehend
and deport all of them within five years.
According to the Houston Chronicle, 7 December 2003, Garrison Courtney
of the Homeland Security’s Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
said: If we don’t have a place to keep them, they’re going to disappear
and we will have to go look for them again.
2.
IRAQ: MORE CASHING IN
Prison Privatisation Report International
No. 58 (October 2003)
http://www.psiru.org/justice/PPRI58.asp#IRAQ
President Bush has included $10 million to finance 100 prison-building
experts for six months at $100,000 per expert in his $20.3 billion
budget request for reconstructing Iraq (see PPRI #56). The experts will
be needed as also included is $400 million for two new 4,000 bed prisons
at a cost of $50,000 per bed.
Meanwhile, the British government has asked group 4 Falck to participate
in the rebuilding of Iraq’s prison sector. A Group 4 spokesperson told
Politiken, 28 August 2003, that: We have no plans to actually operate
prisons in Iraq. We will consult Iraqi prison personnel and provide
relevant personnel training. Group 4 is already providing other security
services in Iraq.
3.
CSC IN WRONGFUL DEATH FINDING
Prison Privatisation Report International
No. 58 (October 2003)
http://www.psiru.org/justice/PPRI58.asp#UNITED STATES
Correctional Services Corporation (CSC) and a nurse formerly in its
employ have been ordered by a Texas court to pay $35 million
compensation plus a further $5.1 million in punitive damages to the
parents and estate of Bryan Alexander (see PPRI # 55, 52, 45-42, 36, 30,
26, 24, etc ).
Eighteen-year-old Mr Alexander had been a prisoner at the company-run
Tarrant County Community Correctional Facility in 2001. He died in
hospital of a rare penicillin-resistant form of pneumonia on 9 January
2001, two days after being moved from the boot camp. Unless overturned
on appeal CSC will be responsible for $26 million of the judgment while
nurse Knyvett Reyes will have to pay $14.1million. The 370-bed boot camp
was closed six months after Mr Alexander died.
The lawsuit brought by Mr Alexander’s family claimed that CSC and its
nurse did not provide adequate and timely medical care. Ms Reyes
testified that she treated Mr Alexander for a cold, flu and strep
throat. Witnesses said that the nurse thought Mr Alexander was faking.
The jury found that the nurse and CSC acted with malice in ignoring the
prisoner’s pleas for help.
CSC had received $2.9 million a year to operate the boot camp. According
to the family’s lawyer, Charlie Smith, This case was more like a
homicide case than a wrongful-death lawsuit because of the way this
young man died. Bryan’s family was hopeful that this jury would speak
loud about the conduct of these defendants so it will not happen to
another child in the same circumstances as Bryan Alexander.
According to an accountant who testified in court, recent financial
reports filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission showed that CSC
is worth more than $50.8 million. CSC’s lawyers stated that the company
has about $35 million in insurance coverage. In this case, the
plaintiffs are asking the jury to punish the company. If the jury
punishes the company, they are probably going to be punishing the stock
holders ... said Vic Anderson, a lawyer for CSC. The company is expected
to appeal against the jury’s verdict.
4.
INVESTIGATION LAUNCHED
Prison Privatisation Report International
No. 58 (October 2003)
http://www.psiru.org/justice/PPRI58.asp#UNITED STATES
New York State Board of Elections has opened an investigation into
whether Correctional Services Corporation (CSC) broke state law by
providing unreported help to New York lawmakers. In February 2003 the
company was fined $300,000 by the state Lobbying Commission for handing
out expensive gifts to state lawmakers (see PPRI # 55, etc). In March
2003 the Board of Elections ordered CSC to obtain refunds from some New
York lawmakers for over-contributions to campaigns. Between 1992 and
2000, CSC received $25.4 million from the state to provide halfway house
services to the New York prison system.
5.
SOUTHERN CATHOLIC BISHOPS SPEAK OUT
Prison Privatisation Report International
No. 56 (June 2003)
http://www.psiru.org/justice/ppri56.asp#UNITED STATES
In April 2003, Southern Catholic Bishops called for an end to for profit
prisons in the US. Set out below is an extract from their statement.
"We note with apprehension the rise of for-profit private prisons in the
South and in the nation. The focus of this statement is the private
prison industry. Recent reports by the U.S. Department of Justice
indicate that prisons operated by private corporations house over
100,000 prisoners in our country.
"Private prisons have become more prevalent because our nation is
putting growing numbers of people behind bars, governments are facing
the rising costs of incarceration as with all public services, and there
is increasing political pressure to privatise many government services.
"We are concerned about the rise in for-profit private prisons because
previous attempts to introduce the profit motive into prisons have
failed to respect the fundamental human dignity of every prisoner.
"We recognise the fundamental human dignity of prisoners and are
troubled by the documented level of violence against prisoners in
private prisons.
"We recognise the inherent dignity of labor and are troubled by the
working conditions and wages of those entrusted with the care of
prisoners in private facilities.
"In order to reduce costs and maximise profits, private prisons
redistribute their operational costs, with less money going to those
employees who work directly with prisoners and more to executives and
shareholders. We do not agree that paying private prison staff lower
wages than public employees receive, or cutting their numbers, advances
the common good or just treatment of prisoners.
"We note that some state and local governments have canceled private
prison contracts because of insufficient staff and mismanagement.
"We question whether private prisons have the incentive to assist people
not to return to prison. In addition to removing people from the
community for the safety of the community, one of the stated purposes of
prison is to prepare the people who are in prison for reintegration into
the community once their sentences have been served.
"Almost everyone in prison is re-entering our communities at some point.
We are concerned that cutting staff and reducing wages in order to
protect profit margins is in conflict with the need to respect and
rehabilitate prisoners. We are even more deeply troubled that the
private prison industry has actively supported institutions that lobby
for harsher sentencing laws, which increase the prison population.
"Since it appears that private prisons are not consistent with the need
for our prisons to respect the human dignity of each and every person,
we call for an end to all for-profit private prisons.
"The trend towards more and more people being held in private prisons
should be reversed immediately. We call on all levels of government to
refuse to sign new contracts or to renew expiring ones with private
prison corporations.
"As long as private prisons continue to exist, they need to be held
fully accountable. While private prisons continue, there needs to be
independent, thorough, and systematic oversight of their operation by
government.
"Our region and our nation must change the policies that are putting so
many of our people in prison. Imprisonment for profit would not have
arisen again if our nation's prison population had not been expanded so
radically. While the U.S. now leads the entire world in rate of
incarceration, our southern states lead the nation. The seven states
with the highest incarceration rates are in the South. Sentencing must
be reformed and alternative sentences employed so that justice rather
than profit is served."
Contact: NC Catholic, Email:
ncc@raldioc.org
6.
CSC SETTLES FOR $300,000 FINE
Prison Privatisation Report International
No. 55 (May 2003)
http://www.psiru.org/justice/PPRI55.1.htm#UNITED STATES
Correctional Service Corporation (CSC) has agreed to pay a $300,000
civil fine for failure to disclose gifts it made to New York politicians
who helped the company obtain millions of dollars worth of business (see
PPRI #52, 45-42, 36, 30, 36, 24, 21, 14 & 3). However, the company did
not admit to breaking the law and, while disagreeing with some of the
Lobbying Commission’s findings, agreed to settle. The fine was a record
for the state Lobbying Commission. CSC was also ordered by New York’s
state board of elections to seek refunds on political contributions it
made in 2002. State law forbids companies from giving more than $5,000
per annum to campaign committees. But in 2002 CSC gave at least $7,500
to such committees. In 1997 CSC was also cited for over-contributing.
7.
HARVARD LAW REVIEW: REASON TO BELIEVE?
Prison Privatisation Report International
No. 50 (October 2002)
http://www.psiru.org/justice/ppri501.asp#UNITED STATES
The Association of Private Corrections and Treatment Organisations (APCTO)
represents the private prison industry (see PPRI # 46-44, 40 & 37). In
July 2002 APCTO issued a statement referring to the Harvard Law Review (HLR)
as an internationally respected source for sound legal and policy
analysis. This accolade was prompted by the inclusion of an article,
"Tale of Two Systems: Cost, Quality and Accountability in Private
Prisons" by Alexander Volokh (see below) in the May 2002 issue of HLR
which was devoted to prison law. The issue was written and edited by
students.
The author of "Two Systems" states that, for the purposes of his
article, he takes prison privatisation as ethically neutral. He asks
whether political influence peddling weakens or strengthens the case for
privatisation and answers it with the assertion that it depends on
whether corruption by corporations is worse than patronage of public
prison guard unions -- a question that calls for further research. On
the question of cost and quality comparisons he argues that what
imperfect empirical evidence there is suggests that private prisons cost
less than public prisons and that their quality is no worse. In short
despite all their possible faults, private prisons are a promising
avenue for the future development of the prison system.
APCTO’s chief executive, Steve Logan, stated in a media release that we
view the HLR article as a meaningful report for this industry,
recommending it to US state and government officials as a sound external
study on the benefits of the public-private partnership in corrections.
However, Michele Deitch, a lawyer with the Centre for Criminal Justice
Initiatives in Austin, Texas, offers another view. Writing in the
Correctional Law Reporter she says: The journal’s visibility means that
prison law might appear on the radar screen of many lawyers, judges and
academics who previously had little or no knowledge about the field.
That’s the good news: the bad news is that they are relying on
inexperienced students to educate them about these issues.
Ms Deitch reviews the whole issue of HLR but has the strongest
reservations about the private prisons section, which, she argues reads
like a lobbying piece for the private prison industry and which was
explicitly influenced by the Reason Foundation, a free market think tank
that advocates privatisation in this area. Little law is actually
covered in the discussion ... which cites extensively from
industry-supported studies to argue that private prisons are in fact
more cost effective and accountable than public institutions.
She adds: There is no evidence that the author approached corrections
officials for their points of view, nor did the author discuss issues
such as the frequent practice of reducing costs by deliberately under
staffing private facilities. Moreover, the author ... misses a key
policy point when reviewing case studies: because private operators can
pick and choose the ‘cream of the crop’ inmates, who are necessarily
less expensive to house, they effectively drive up the prices of the
comparison group of public institutions, which are left with
higher-security and more medically needy inmate population. Thus many of
these studies are comparing apples and oranges.
In her review Ms Deitch also counters the author’s argument that the
market keeps private prisons accountable by allowing governments to
rescind contracts as necessary. The author ignores the reality of the
crises that typically lead to contracts with private providers, leaving
corrections officials with little leverage in contract negotiations. She
concludes: one wishes that this part of the article could have been as
objective as the other sections.
--The author of "Tale of Two Systems: Cost, Quality and Accountability
in Private Prisons" is Alexander Volokh. Mr Volokh is not a student but
an assistant policy analyst who specialises in environmental policy for
the Reason Public Policy Institute (RPPI). His qualifications for
writing about prison privatisation are listed on the RPPI website. Mr
Volokh’s expertise includes hazardous waste policy, environmental
economics, regulation, risk assessment, solid waste management, and the
tort system.
--The aim of Reason’s Competitive Corrections Research Project is to
explore the role of the private sector in corrections, evaluate the
benefits of competition and privatisation, educate the public,
government officials and the media on private corrections issues and
provide practical, nuts-and-bolts policy advice to elected officials.
--The Reason Foundation was formed in 1978 and refers to itself as a
national non-partisan research organisation. It develops ideas for
increased private sector involvement at the state and local levels. It
is so non-partisan that George W. Bush nominated Lynn Scarlett, Reason’s
president, as secretary of policy, management and budget of the US
department of the interior.
According to NIRA’s World Directory of Think Tanks, Reason’s funding in
1998 comprised: 27 per cent private donations; 25 per cent publication
sales; 20 per cent corporate donations; and 15 per cent from US
foundations. Its budget was $5.4 million. Media Transparency’s website
reveals that this ‘conservative libertarian think tank’ received 97
foundation grants with a value of $4.5 million between 1985 and 2000,
the main donors being: the Linda and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc; David
H.Koch Charitable Foundation; Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation;
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation; Scaife Family Foundation; Smith
Richardson Foundation; John M. Olin Foundation and the Carthage
Foundation.
Harvard Law Review, May 2002,
http://www.harvardlawreview.org
Correctional Law Reporter, August/September 2002,
http://www.civicresearchinstitute.com/co3
Reason Public Policy Institute,
http://www.rppi.org
8.
NEW COALITION
Prison Privatisation Report International
No. 49 (August-September 2002)
http://www.psiru.org/justice/ppri49.asp#United States
A new coalition opposed to prison privatisation has been formed in the
US. Citizens Against Private Prisons of North America (CAPP) was formed
from an initiative in July 2002 by Corrections USA (CUSA) and the
California Correctional Peace Officers Association.
Ken Kopczynski of the Florida Police Benevolent Association (FPBA) is
CAPP’s chairperson. Announcing CAPP’s launch on 2 August 2002 he said:
This is a historic moment in the battle for public safety and against
yet another industry whose only motivation is profit. Incarceration for
profit has been, and always will be, a bad idea. The expertise and
commitment of the members of CAPP is unsurpassed. CAPP claims that it
will organise local communities, educate decision makers and debate the
for-profit prison industry wherever and whenever the corporations
attempt to get new contracts. CAPP will also work to dismantle the
private prison industry wherever and whenever it can.
Last Updated ( Sunday, 22 February 2004)
|
