# The Canadian Prisons Thread



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

There has been a great deal of discussion around the Harper government's plans for new prisons. Here's something to get our debates going:

*Canada's Prison Industrial Complex is coming*



> "There is something unethical with having corporations seeking profits from locking people up,"
> 
> The American Prison Industrial Complex wasn't born overnight, but by a series of quiet amendments and additions over the years.
> 
> That same crack is being formed, right now, by which our Prime Minister will allow the Prison Industrial Complex into Canada.





> Private prison companies look to Canada as industry faces lawsuits in US:
> Private prison companies look to Canada as industry faces lawsuits in US
> 
> First Harper creates the problem, then he makes it worse by removing funding and pushing the public service to the breaking point. Then the program is killed and the 'Private' option offered as the solution.


(ABoyAndHisTVShow)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think we should look at privatized prisons run by Canadian companies first. The notion that the government runs things in some sort of impartial fashion that involve no special interests is laughable to begin with.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I think we should look at privatized prisons run by Canadian companies first.


Under NAFTA rules, that would be impossible. Our economic sovereignty was surrendered many, many moons ago 

* * * 

_As for our prisons..._

*No inmate influx means $1.48B in the bank, Toews says*



> The expected influx of prison inmates from the federal government's tougher sentencing rules didn't materialize, so the government can count on spending $1.48 billion less than budgeted, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said today.
> 
> The money — $1.48 billion over seven years, Toews said — is the difference between what was allocated to the Correctional Service of Canada for an expected increase in capital expenditures and operational costs due to a predicted jump in the number of inmates, and what is actually needed based on the latest numbers.





> One prisoners' advocate said Toews's announcement was "beyond disingenuous."
> 
> "The numbers of prisoners is increasing and the crime rate has not been impacted by the legislative changes," Kim Pate of the Elizabeth Fry Society said in an email to CBC News. "Furthermore, some of the most significant changes are just now coming in to force, so we are not likely to experience the full impact of legislative and policy decisions yet
> 
> "Are we really expected to believe that more people in prison for longer periods of time is saving us money or keeping us safe? All evidence, especially from the U.S. experience, proves otherwise," Pate said.


(CBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Under NAFTA rules, that would be impossible. Our economic sovereignty was surrendered many, many moons ago


"Economic sovereignty" is a joke that translates to--"taxpayers will pay more to use local suppliers." 

All I'm saying is that some Canadian companies should step up to the plate with bids.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

punishment & rehabilitation should be the concern of our penal system. 
not profits


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> Under NAFTA rules, that would be impossible. Our economic sovereignty was surrendered many, many moons ago
> 
> * * *
> 
> ...


So what's the issue? No mega prisons like the opposition said there would be or the fact that the tough on crime agenda isn't going to cost as much as the opposition claimed?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> punishment & rehabilitation should be the concern of our penal system.
> not profits


Punishment yes, that is why it is called a penal system, and where possible most definitely rehabilitation.

But what profit??? Reduced cost!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> What profit??? Reduced cost!


Exactly.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> But what profit??? Reduced cost!


is that how it worked out in the States?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> So what's the issue? No mega prisons like the opposition said there would be


isn't the federal government adding over 2000+ new cells?.....plus more provincial jails are being built as we speak.



screature said:


> or the fact that the tough on crime agenda isn't going to cost as much as the opposition claimed?


i think it's a bit too early to tell what the real cost of the bill will be. The thing was just passed a few months ago.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> i*sn't the federal government adding over 2000+ new cells?.*....*plus more provincial jails are being built as we speak*.
> 
> i think it's a bit too early to tell what the real cost of the bill will be. The thing was just passed a few months ago.


Link? and if so it would address an already existing over population problem or do you want to have your cake and eat it too and just keep on double bunking and then bitch about that....?

Link?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Link?


Double-bunking in crowded prison cells is not a problem for Toews - The Globe and Mail



screature said:


> and if so it would address an already existing over population problem or do you want to have your cake and eat it too and just keep on double bunking and then bitch about that....?


lol, it seems you're the one who wants to have his cake and eat it too. they aren't building new cells to alleviate double-bunking, they're building more cells to fill them up.



> And even as he reiterated his commitment to building 2,700 new cells in existing prison facilities, he said those additional units aren’t meant to alleviate the pressures caused by double-bunking – because there’s no need.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> Double-bunking in crowded prison cells is not a problem for Toews - The Globe and Mail
> 
> lol, it seems you're the one who wants to have his cake and eat it too. they aren't building new cells to alleviate double-bunking, they're building more cells to fill them up.


Like I said... you will just want to bitch about double bunking, cause it means they aren't building the new prisons you claimed they would be building.... 2000+ new cells for a population of 33+ million and that is an issue for you? Really?

Why?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> is that how it worked out in the States?


There's big elephant in the room.

The problem with the concept of privatization that seems constantly held up as the model for reduced costs, is it simply isn't true.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Sort of works like this in the US. Somehow when governments partner up with business it becomes a scam and taxpayers are left on the hook. Might have something to do with the buddies of the politicos getting the contracts.

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/displayArticle.aspx?articleid=21942&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Sort of works like this in the US. Somehow when governments partner up with business it becomes a scam and taxpayers are left on the hook. Might have something to do with the buddies of the politicos getting the contracts.
> 
> https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/displayArticle.aspx?articleid=21942&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1


And there are no scams when the public service is running the show?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

of course there are scams when the public service runs things, we have plenty of examples of it. Just as there are scams when the private sector runs things. But the myth here is that somehow privatization suddenly means no scams and cheaper. Especially when there are plenty of examples of privatizations resulting in reduced service, huge cost over runs and certainly plenty of scams, all of which we as tax payers are still on the hook for.

I think both options are equally valid and should be weighed. But to suggest privatization will solve budget problems generally speaking is simply incorrect imo.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The big issues to me are that privatization necessarily increases the cost by whatever profit margin the company running it is making, and that private companies cannot be required to provide public account of their actions.

Government-run institutions are notoriously inefficient and opaque, but these are problems that can, at least in principle, be fixed. The public can and should demand public institutions be efficient and transparent. Only shareholders can make these requirements of corporations.

My preference is for most products and services to be provided by competing private ventures with appropriate government oversight to prevent collusion, ensure standards compliance, and protect labour and the environment, etc., because if you don't like the way a certain company runs its business, you're free to not deal with them. But for essential services like health care, police, military, fire, and sadly necessary things like correctional institutions, privatization is not a viable alternative.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> The big issues to me are that privatization necessarily increases the cost by whatever profit margin the company running it is making, and that private companies cannot be required to provide public account of their actions.
> 
> Government-run institutions are notoriously inefficient and opaque, but these are problems that can, at least in principle, be fixed. The public can and should demand public institutions be efficient and transparent. Only shareholders can make these requirements of corporations.


They demand it frequently. However, it's so large that the public service is more powerful than the governments elected. The inefficiency is now built in.



bryanc said:


> My preference is for most products and services to be provided by competing private ventures with appropriate government oversight to prevent collusion, ensure standards compliance, and protect labour and the environment, etc. But for essential services like health care, police, military, fire, and sadly necessary things like correctional institutions, privatization is not a viable alternative.


I believe they should be privatized _because_ they are essential. Too important to be left to bumbling governments. Government is better at hag-riding private providers than providing services itself


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I believe they should be privatized _because_ they are essential. Too important to be left to bumbling governments. Government is better at hag-riding private providers than providing services itself


I don't dispute the historical validity of your criticisms of government; but I seen no reason this is an inherent problem of public institutions. Rather than just throwing our hands in the air and saying "let the private sector handle it... we can trust them..." we should work on and demand improvement from our public institutions.

Unfortunately, our current federal government, despite having run on a platform of accountability, transparency and efficiency, have demonstrated themselves to be the most secretive bunch of pork-barelling, back-room dealing, scoundrels we've ever had to deal with. Their answer to the problem of accountability is to get rid of the accountants; soon we'll have the most fact-free government in history.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I don't dispute the historical validity of your criticisms of government; but I seen no reason this is an inherent problem of public institutions. Rather than just throwing our hands in the air and saying "let the private sector handle it... we can trust them..." we should work on and demand improvement from our public institutions.
> 
> Unfortunately, our current federal government, despite having run on a platform of accountability, transparency and efficiency, have demonstrated themselves to be the most secretive bunch of pork-barelling, back-room dealing, scoundrels we've ever had to deal with. Their answer to the problem of accountability is to get rid of the accountants; soon we'll have the most fact-free government in history.


Governments given enough power to dominate our lives will become secretive or corrupt. If they're big enough to sustain you, they're big enough to dominate you. There is no accountability once the balance of power shifts to government, not only to set the direction of the country, but to micro-manage the lives and choices of its citizens. 

In addition, government cannot effectively provide services and simultaneously police itself in providing those services. A great example is the way in which the government overlooks its own transgressions in power generation, but acts quickly to to enforce regulations involving private providers. 

Better to give the government the role of a standards enforcer and let private companies carry out work under their oppressive watch.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> I don't dispute the historical validity of your criticisms of government; but *I seen no reason this is an inherent problem of public institutions.* Rather than just throwing our hands in the air and saying "let the private sector handle it... we can trust them..." we should work on and demand improvement from our public institutions.
> 
> Unfortunately, our current federal government, despite having run on a platform of accountability, transparency and efficiency, have demonstrated themselves to be *the most secretive bunch of pork-barelling, back-room dealing, scoundrels we've ever had to deal with. *Their answer to the problem of accountability is to get rid of the accountants; soon we'll have the most fact-free government in history.


Because bloated bureaucracies by their very nature create inefficiencies and there is always the public purse funded by public tax dollars and the potential to merely increase taxes to cover the inflated costs.

On the other hand private institutions can and often do run more efficiently because often the only way to increase profit is through functional efficiencies, i.e. if you continually increase the cost of your product or service you reach a point of diminishing returns because your product/services are simply too expensive and people stop buying from you and buy from your competition instead.

Seems your memory is selective when it comes to pork barrelling and secrecy if you think the current administration is the worst in that department... Trudeau, Mulroney Chretien were all as bad in their own way... we just have greater means to know that we don't know now, then it was secret because *we had no way to know* or at least significantly less means to know.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I think we put far too many people in jail and, the greatest crime in my opinion, is that once we have them in there we punish them further by our treatment. We should not forget that going to prison is the punishment, not being in prison. Too me I think Harper just has penal envy.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

rps said:


> i think harper just has penal envy.


omg!!!!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> I think we put far too many people in jail and, the greatest crime in my opinion, is that once we have them in there we punish them further by our treatment. We should not forget that going to prison is the punishment, not being in prison.


I also believe that being in prison should be something of a punishment as well.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> I think we put far too many people in jail and, the greatest crime in my opinion, is that once we have them in there we punish them further by our treatment. We should not forget that going to prison is the punishment, not being in prison. Too me I think Harper just has penal envy.


Sorry Rps I know people who have worked intimately with our system and I don't think you fully understand the system and what it was designed to do well before Harper ever came along... 

I think the fact is that Harper is bringing us back to the original intentions... i.e. a penal system and not some "oh sorry you are such a degenerate it must be societies fault we will rehabilitate you" system... 

Which never worked... look at the number of repeat offenders under such a system.... when that was the case we just simply made it easier to re-offend without any serious consequences...

That will teach them... re-offend and we will simply attempt to rehabilitate you all over again without any serious consequences and you are back on the street to re-offend and the "correct" process starts all over again... "oh sorry you are such a degenerate it must be societies fault we will rehabilitate you"... over and over and so it goes....


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I also believe that being in prison should be something of a punishment as well.


Being in prison should be primarily about punishment and secondarily about rehabilitation.... rehabilitation should occur in half-way houses and the like once by good behaviour while in prison you demonstrate you want to reintegrate within society...

If you don't demonstrate that behaviour then f**k you and stay there until you have the right frame of mind... If you don't ever develop that frame of mind then stay in prison until your dying days...

Society as a whole and its security should come before the so called "rights" of criminals and degenerates... who I would argue have given up their rights and freedoms by committing the heinous crimes they did in the first place... 

Want to maintain your rights and freedoms...? Then "don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Pretty simple actually.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> Society as a whole and its security should come before the so called "rights" of criminals and degenerates... who I would argue have given up their rights and freedoms by committing the heinous crimes they did in the first place...


...and yet the crooks who led the world's largest bank failures and economic catastrophe for millions of people got bonuses and sailed off into the sunset on their luxury yachts... funny, that.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I don't dispute the historical validity of your criticisms of government; but I seen no reason this is an inherent problem of public institutions. Rather than just throwing our hands in the air and saying "let the private sector handle it... we can trust them..." we should work on and demand improvement from our public institutions.


A little hard to do when the party faithful just look the other way, wink and say "All is well he's our guy." 

A better approach would be to look at an issue as if it was the other parties guy. If you would be calling for blood then, you should also call for blood when it's your guy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> ...and yet the crooks who led the world's largest bank failures and economic catastrophe for millions of people got bonuses and sailed off into the sunset on their luxury yachts... funny, that.


What would you have charged them with?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I don't dispute the historical validity of your criticisms of government; but I seen no reason this is an inherent problem of public institutions. Rather than just throwing our hands in the air and saying "let the private sector handle it... we can trust them..." we should work on and demand improvement from our public institutions.
> 
> Unfortunately, our current federal government, despite having run on a platform of accountability, transparency and efficiency, have demonstrated themselves to be the most secretive bunch of pork-barelling, back-room dealing, scoundrels we've ever had to deal with. Their answer to the problem of accountability is to get rid of the accountants; soon we'll have the most fact-free government in history.


Agreed. Those are my exact thoughts as well. I could never really figure out the almost mythical belief that somehow, if you just privatize something, it will suddenly solve all the inefficiencies, pork barrelling, the backroom deals for all the private sector players lining up for favors and sweet contracts.

Not to mention the examples of privatizations actually ballooning costs far worse than when it was public, and letting the hapless taxpayer footing the bill. I think I posted this before, but it's pretty eye opening, and is occurring right here in Toronto. Thank god we have some smarter councillors here wise enough to see the pitfalls of privatization.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncv8RgBb4Uk

zing.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Like I said... you will just want to bitch about double bunking, cause it means they aren't building the new prisons you claimed they would be building....


thanks for reading my mind and formulating what i would "bitch" about....although i do admit I'm concerned with human rights and things like that. I guess i'm funny that way.....

but as i already pointed out (and you tried to paper over) Vic Towes has already said that these new cells aren't being built to alleviate double bunking. It's simply not an issue for the Harper Government, so please don't try to use it as some excuse.



screature said:


> 2000+ new cells for a population of 33+ million and that is an issue for you? Really?
> 
> Why?


well, it's actually 2700+ cells, and considering that our current federal inmate population is less than 15,000 that means the Harper government is preparing to increase capacity by almost 20%. That seems rather extreme IMO. 

Add to this that provinces are also building new prisons.That's why it's an issue.



screature said:


> Sorry Rps I know people who have worked intimately with our system and I don't think you fully understand the system and what it was designed to do well before Harper ever came along...
> 
> I think the fact is that Harper is bringing us back to the original intentions... i.e. a penal system and not some "oh sorry you are such a degenerate it must be societies fault we will rehabilitate you" system...
> 
> ...


You do of course realize that the crime rate has been going *DOWN* in Canada? That it's the *LOWEST* it's been in almost 40 years?

But please, don't let things like statistics and facts get in the way of a good rant.



screature said:


> Being in prison should be primarily about punishment and secondarily about rehabilitation.... rehabilitation should occur in half-way houses and the like once by good behaviour while in prison you demonstrate you want to reintegrate within society...
> 
> If you don't demonstrate that behaviour then f**k you and stay there until you have the right frame of mind... If you don't ever develop that frame of mind then stay in prison until your dying days...
> 
> ...


lol

now *THAT* was a rant. 

call me crazy, but i'll take our system of justice over yours of revenge.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> What would you have charged them with?


Fraud?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> Fraud?


They sold bundled mortgages backed by a government organization--Fannie Mae. Government intervention made these items palatable to the market. They would never have sold without government approval. Is it fraud to sell mortgage bundles backed by the government?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Goldman Sachs sold & pushed the toxic assets on customers while simultaneously betting against them to fail.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> Goldman Sachs sold & pushed the toxic assets on customers while simultaneously betting against them to fail.


With the complicity of the government who blessed them. Do you think the feds would prosecute and then risk getting prosecuted themselves?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> thanks for reading my mind and formulating what i would "bitch" about....although i do admit I'm concerned with human rights and things like that. I guess i'm funny that way.....
> 
> but as i already pointed out (and you tried to paper over) Vic Towes has already said that these new cells aren't being built to alleviate double bunking.* It's simply not an issue for the Harper Government, so please don't try to use it as some excuse.*


Nor for all modern western democracies...




i-rui said:


> well, it's actually 2700+ cells, and considering that our current federal inmate population is less than 15,000 that means the Harper government is preparing to increase capacity by almost 20%. That seems rather extreme IMO.
> *
> Add to this that provinces are also building new prisons.*That's why it's an issue.


Gee I didn't realize 2000+ didn't include 2700. The number of cells are inline with the expected increase in the prison population... currently it is at 14,96 5and is estimated to grow to 17,725 by June 30, 2012... so lets see... 14,965+2700= 17,665 seems about right when one does the math.

I asked you for for a link to this before and you failed to provide it. Which Provinces? NFLD...? that has a need to replace its 150 old prison that is inadequate? Well yeah that is to be expected. *Exactly* what other provinces have these plans and what are their capacities and are they simply replacing older outdated facilities... let's see the details i-rui or are we supposed to believe you without any supporting evidence?



i-rui said:


> You do of course realize that the crime rate has been going *DOWN* in Canada? That it's the *LOWEST* it's been in almost 40 years?
> 
> But please, don't let things like statistics and facts get in the way of a good rant.


So how exactly does this directly relate to prison population and the need for more spaces? We also have the largest population in the history of Canada so despite the *rate* simply a growing population can obviously increase the number of actual prisoners, but don't let the overall math get in the way of a good rant...




i-rui said:


> call me crazy, but i'll take our system of justice over yours of revenge.


You asked for it... you're crazy. 

What constitutes justice depends on who you talk to and while the justice system and the penal system are related they aren't the same thing and every justice system in the world includes a penal system which is not about revenge but appropriate punishment depending on the nature of the crime and keeping the rest of society safe.

I suppose for you it is revenge when you have to punish your child for something they did that was very wrong and not about teaching them a lesson so they won't grow up to repeat that same bad behaviour.

You paint a very simplistic picture for that which is a very complicated subject and I know I'm not crazy when I reiterate, "Society as a whole and its security should come before the so called "rights" of criminals and degenerates... who I would argue have given up their rights and freedoms by committing the heinous crimes they did in the first place...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

i-rui said:


> You do of course realize that the crime rate has been going *DOWN* in Canada? That it's the *LOWEST* it's been in almost 40 years?
> 
> But please, don't let things like statistics and facts get in the way...


The best approach for a government who's ideology is not supported by facts is to eliminate the facts. Hence the evisceration of Stats Canada, NSERC, etc. Soon, Harper won't have to worry about pesky facts getting in the way of his agenda.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> The best approach for a government who's ideology is not supported by facts is to eliminate the facts. Hence the evisceration of Stats Canada, NSERC, etc. Soon, Harper won't have to worry about pesky facts getting in the way of his agenda.


Because we all know that facts don't exist unless they're government funded. 

Dear heaven, what if they pull the funding on facts about the Sun? All will be darkness.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Dear heaven, what if they pull the funding on facts about the Sun? All will be darkness.


This is part of the plan. It obviously won't change the fact that the sun continues to shine, but it will allow the government to claim that global warming is the sun's fault. Harper et al. like their facts made-up, not collected by trained scientists or statisticians. It's much easier to pick the facts to fit your ideology if there aren't any rules.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> This is part of the plan. It obviously won't change the fact that the sun continues to shine, but it will allow the government to claim that global warming is the sun's fault. Harper et al. like their facts made-up, not collected by trained scientists or statisticians. It's much easier to pick the facts to fit your ideology if there aren't any rules.


Are trained statisticians only employed by the government?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Are trained statisticians only employed by the government?


Presumably, those employed by the private sector are accountable to, and report to their bosses, making whatever data and analysis they produce private property to be used to whatever advantage the profit-motivated organizations that employ them choose. In contrast, statisticians and researchers employed by the public sector produce data and analyses that should be (and largely are) available to all citizens, and can therefore be used in the rational discussion of public policy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Presumably, those employed by the private sector are accountable to, and report to their bosses, making whatever data and analysis they produce private property to be used to whatever advantage the profit-motivated organizations that employ them choose. In contrast, statisticians and researchers employed by the public sector produce data and analyses that should be (and largely are) available to all citizens, and can therefore be used in the rational discussion of public policy.


Because free access to statistics is one of the rights and freedoms outlined in the Charter?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Presumably, those employed by the private sector are accountable to, and report to their bosses, making whatever data and analysis they produce private property to be used to whatever advantage the profit-motivated organizations that employ them choose. * In contrast, statisticians and researchers employed by the public sector produce data and analyses that should be (and largely are) available to all citizens, and can therefore be used in the rational discussion of public policy*.


You have demonstrated before bryanc you have very limited knowledge of how public policy is made and the naivety contained in this statement just confirms that... Public policy is made in conjunction with research conducted by the private sector, the public sector, NGO's, community groups, special interest groups, partisan political interests, non partisan think tanks, polling, etc, etc.... 

Public policy *is not and should not* be made based solely on research conducted by government bodies. I am quite sure you are fully competent in the understanding of your specialization, but how public policy is made and should be made isn't your specialization.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Presumably, those employed by the private sector are accountable to, and report to their bosses, making whatever data and analysis they produce private property to be used to whatever advantage the profit-motivated organizations that employ them choose. In contrast, statisticians and researchers employed by the public sector produce data and analyses that should be (and largely are) available to all citizens, and can therefore be used in the rational discussion of public policy.


Right..and I had the "privilege" to be selected for Stats Canada's "Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS)". I was alright with it until I found the complete questionnaire on their website.

After going through it, I asked them to respect my privacy and declined to participate. They do make appointments as the survey is done in person and takes about an hour. The reason I declined is that I found it too personal and intrusive; not to mention it isn't anonymous and will be shared publicly.

Judge for yourselves:

http://www23.statcan.gc.ca:81/imdb-bmdi/instrument/3226_Q1_V8-eng.htm

After, click the home button for all current studies/surveys.

EDIT: Posting the link to surveys:
Information for Survey participants


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> Right..and I had the "privilege" to be selected for Stats Canada's "Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS)". I was alright with it until I found the complete questionnaire on their website.


I consistently answer StatsCan questions in such a way as to minimize the need to provide me with more public services. The questionnaires and surveys are almost perversely designed with the assumption that, by my very existence, I am a client for the good works of the public sector.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I'm thankful it's voluntary, otherwise they might get some pretty skewed answers from me just for pi**ing me off.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> You have demonstrated before bryanc you have very limited knowledge of how public policy is made and the naivety contained in this statement just confirms that... Public policy is made in conjunction with research conducted by the private sector, the public sector, NGO's, community groups, special interest groups, partisan political interests, non partisan think tanks, polling, etc, etc....
> 
> Public policy *is not and should not* be made based solely on research conducted by government bodies. I am quite sure you are fully competent in the understanding of your specialization, but how public policy is made and should be made isn't your specialization.


Is that really necessary, to spend the post denigrating another as 'limited in knowledge', and naive? I'm only pointing this out because I know I'd be jumped on if I did that.

I thought we were improving the tone here.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

...edited to maintain continuity...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Prison Privatization: Canada Mulls Contracting Services To Companies Lobbying For Correctional Work*



> Faced with lawsuits and bad publicity in their home country, U.S. private prison corporations are lobbying to enter Canada -- and the Canadian government is considering allowing them, news reports indicate.
> 
> According to federal government documents obtained by Bloomberg News, the Correctional Service of Canada “may consider” contracting out certain prison services, such as cleaning and food preparation.
> 
> CSC officials last May urged Public Safety Minister Vic Toews to discuss Canada’s “interest in considering the privatization of penitentiary services on a limited basis,”





> among the companies lobbying Ottawa for a piece of the prison action is Geo Group, a Florida-based corporation whose lobbyist met with Toews last year.
> 
> The company is the target of a class-action lawsuit alleging that one of its youth facilities in Louisiana was plagued by sexual abuse. The suit alleges that guards engaged in sex with inmates -- who at that facility range in age from 13 to 22 -- and smuggled drugs into the prison. The facility allegedly denied health care and education services to inmates as well. A federal judge described the Geo Group prison as "a cesspool of unconstitutional and inhuman acts."





> The other prison company confirmed by The Guardian to be lobbying Ottawa is Management and Training Corporation (MTC), which has had its own share of controversies.





> Some prison corporations have responded with more aggressive business strategies. Corrections Corporation of America,* the U.S.’s largest private prison operator, recently sent a letter to 48 U.S. state governments offering to buy up their prisons -- in exchange for keeping them at least 90-per-cent full.*
> 
> It’s this sort of tension between prison profits and the criminal justice system that has many critics of prison privatization worried.


(HuffingtonPost)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> *Prison Privatization: Canada Mulls Contracting Services To Companies Lobbying For Correctional Work*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh my god the sky is falling.. run for your lives... "Correctional Service of Canada *“may consider” contracting out certain prison services, such as cleaning and food preparation."*

Never any sexual misconduct or prisoner abuse in government run penal institutions... it has never, ever happened and never could. 

I would say that a company that says to the government who is paying for their services "we aim to operate at 90% capacity"... that would be a pretty significant selling point.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Huh? Who did I denigrate?


oops, sorry k, wrote quote.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> oops, sorry k, wrote quote.


OK, edited.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Nor for all modern western democracies...


well Canada has strict rules about when Double Bunking can be used and is a signatory of the UN’s Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, so to blatantly disregard and be flippant about when it can and can't be used is a serious breech of the government's word.

but that's par for the course with the Harper government on all matters.....



screature said:


> Gee I didn't realize 2000+ didn't include 2700. The number of cells are inline with the expected increase in the prison population... currently it is at 14,96 5and is estimated to grow to 17,725 by June 30, 2012... so lets see... 14,965+2700= 17,665 seems about right when one does the math.


the estimates are based on legislation brought in by Harper & co. which everyone knew was going to increase the prison population (despite the FACT that our country's crime rate was down). That is what i object to. Why does ever discussion with you always turn into a circular argument?



screature said:


> I asked you for for a link to this before and you failed to provide it. Which Provinces? NFLD...? that has a need to replace its 150 old prison that is inadequate? Well yeah that is to be expected. *Exactly* what other provinces have these plans and what are their capacities and are they simply replacing older outdated facilities... let's see the details i-rui or are we supposed to believe you without any supporting evidence?


The largest expansion of prison building ‘since the 1930s’ | News | National Post



> From Prince Edward Island to British Columbia to Nunavut, Canada is undergoing a massive prison expansion. The federal government is adding 2,700 beds, and *the provinces and territories have added or are adding a further 7,000, at an estimated cost of $4-billion*. British Columbia has embarked on the most expensive building plan in its history.


and of course let's not forget about Nova Scotia's new prison, and this will bring us back to what CubaMark original alluded to and how our government is using these new laws to cozy up to their corporate pals :

Enbridge executive's company awarded first crime Bill C-10 $38.5-million prison project | CANADIAN PROGRESSIVE WORLD


-----------------------





bryanc said:


> The best approach for a government who's ideology is not supported by facts is to eliminate the facts. Hence the evisceration of Stats Canada, NSERC, etc. Soon, Harper won't have to worry about pesky facts getting in the way of his agenda.


agree completely. an informed public is crucial to a functioning democracy, and if corporations are the only ones in possession of data then they will be the gatekeepers on what the public knows.

we already face the problem that despite these facts :










we have a government that has passed laws with the intention of growing the prison population. They were able to do this by frightening half their base with fear of a problem that has been on the wane for decades, while the other half hope to be able to live their Charles Bronson fantasy vicariously through our penal system.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rates are down, population is up.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Rates are down, population is up.


Canada's Population growth rate is around 1%.....that certainly doesn't match the nearly 20% inmate growth rate the Harper government is preparing for.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> Canada's Population growth rate is around 1%.....that certainly doesn't match the nearly 20% inmate growth rate the Harper government is preparing for.


The population is up nearly 50% since those crime rate statistics began. It's no wonder prisons are crowded.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> The population is up nearly 50% since those crime rate statistics began. It's no wonder prisons are crowded.


There you go... not to mention a preponderance of red herring.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Macfury said:


> They demand it frequently. However, it's so large that the public service is more powerful than the governments elected. The inefficiency is now built in.


That's utter nonsense. The elected officials have the power, and Harper certainly hasn't been afraid to show it. 

The problem with the public service is the size. As with any company, the larger they become, the easier to lose track of individual expenses and inefficiencies. 

Then again, with the leglislation that comes down and the mess it's in, I blame alot of the expenses of the public service squarely on the legislation that comes down. Nothing's ever simple, it has several exceptions, several different ways of handling things, several penalties, changing interest, etc., etc.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Macfury said:


> The population is up nearly 50% since those crime rate statistics began. It's no wonder prisons are crowded.


LOL. Are we in the same country???

We're talking about Canada, right?

At least use an emoticon when you make a joke.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kosh said:


> LOL. Are we in the same country???
> 
> We're talking about Canada, right?
> 
> At least use an emoticon when you make a joke.


Look at the third graph which begins in 1980. Population of Canada in 1980: 24 million.

Population of Canada in 2012: 35 million.

You're going to argue about a 50 per cent increase in population since 1980? I'm listening...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kosh said:


> That's utter nonsense. The elected officials have the power, and Harper certainly hasn't been afraid to show it.


Career civil servants and their unions are the power behind the (elected) throne. They can make or break governments, depending on their willingness to comply with directives. Tell them what you want done and they can do it well, or make it impossible. Fire some of them and get them angry and they will work to rule.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Look at the third graph which begins in 1980. Population of Canada in 1980: 24 million.
> 
> Population of Canada in 2012: 35 million.
> 
> You're going to argue about a 50 per cent increase in population since 1980? I'm listening...


so you're suggesting that our prison population capacity has been stagnant since 1980? that Harper is just playing catch up?

really?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> so you're suggesting that our prison population capacity has been stagnant since 1980? that Harper is just playing catch up?


No. I'm arguing that any discussion based on the current low crime rate is irrelevant if it is not adjusted for population.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Career civil servants and their unions are the power behind the (elected) throne. They can make or break governments, depending on their willingness to comply with directives. Tell them what you want done and they can do it well, or make it impossible. Fire some of them and get them angry and they will work to rule.


Utter nonsense. 

Harper just fired thousands... no-one is working to rule. 

Harper enacted legislation to get rid of the penalty for not filling in the long form at Stats Can. Stats Can complied even though they explained it wasn't smart, and that the ministers and prime minisiter didn't ask them for their input on changing things. 

Harper has legislated that all department's funds for salaries are frozen for that last couple (few?) years. The departments have no choice.

Public service or any union strikes... Harper legislates them back to work. 

Ministers want to meddle in their department's work, fine they do it and mess things up. Just look at Bev Oda.

Let's get this straight, the elected officials have the power and control the purse strings.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> No. I'm arguing that any discussion based on the current low crime rate is irrelevant if it is not adjusted for population.


i'm not following you. traditionally an increase in population shows an increase in crime rate.

if anything the decrease in the crime rate of Canada is even *MORE* drastic when you factor in the rising population. (especially since that extra population is concentrated and has increased the population density instead of being spread out)


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Oh, did I forget to mention good ol' Peter Mackay. He asks for a chopper to pick him up, DND tells him it's not a good idea. Does he listen, NOOOOOOO. He's mister in charge, and orders the chopper. Just another example of who's in charge and how they mess up.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Oh, and if the public service is being downsized, why is the government building a grand new campus for CSEC and DCC on Olgivie? That place is huge. More overspending by the Tories in power, while they cut jobs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> i'm not following you. traditionally an increase in population shows an increase in crime rate.
> 
> if anything the decrease in the crime rate of Canada is even *MORE* drastic when you factor in the rising population. (especially since that extra population is concentrated and has increased the population density instead of being spread out)


No--there is no real hard correlation between population and crime rate. 

All I am saying is that the crime rate is an irrelevant figure if it does not give you the total number of criminals/prisoners introduced into the prison system in any given year. The argument "Harper is building prisons while the crime rate is going down" is not, on its own, a logical argument against building prisons.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> The argument "Harper is building prisons while the crime rate is going down" is not, on its own, a logical argument against building prisons.


You're not seriously saying that. Are you?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> You're not seriously saying that. Are you?


Why not? Most federal prisons are over one hundred years old and cost a fortune to maintain and operate. A modern high tech facility may end up costing less in the long term and even be better for the inmates.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> You're not seriously saying that. Are you?


Of course I am. The argument is a logical fallacy unless we correlate it with convict numbers.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I've been living in a spanish-speaking environment too long - my grasp of english is slipping away.

I get what you're saying - that Harper may still build prisons for other reasons than the crime rate (substandard institutions, etc.).

Replacing or upgrading existing facilities is of course understandable. The thing that has most of us concerned is the entry of the large, corrupt (evidence-based claim) companies that currently run U.S. prisons, and what have - at least on one occasion - been shown to collude with corrupt judges to send more people into the system (to reach that touted "90% full" figure).


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> I've been living in a spanish-speaking environment too long - my grasp of english is slipping away.
> 
> I get what you're saying - that Harper may still build prisons for other reasons than the crime rate (substandard institutions, etc.).
> 
> Replacing or upgrading existing facilities is of course understandable. The thing that has most of us concerned is the entry of the large, corrupt (evidence-based claim) companies that currently run U.S. prisons, and what have - at least on one occasion - been shown to collude with corrupt judges to send more people into the system (to reach that touted "90% full" figure).


Isn't the corruption more at the state than federal level? I could see elected state judges taking a bribe, but not federal judges. At least not on a large scale.

I also think we have better checks and balances here in Canada than they have down there when it comes to some of these kinds of issues. I would think that there would be plenty of federal employees in a privately run facility to blow the whistle on any wrong doing. These places are full of social workers, psychologists, health and medical staff which would not be part of the private sector.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> IThe thing that has most of us concerned is the entry of the large, corrupt (evidence-based claim) companies that currently run U.S. prisons, and what have - at least on one occasion - been shown to collude with corrupt judges to send more people into the system (to reach that touted "90% full" figure).


My understanding of this sort of public private partnership would be that the prison management company would be paid for a minimum 90 per cent capacity rate, regardless of whether there were fewer prisoners incarcerated. I don't believe that there would be any advantage to incarcerate more prisoners if you were running at 85% capacity and being paid for 90. That's a good thing!


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

kps said:


> These places are full of social workers, psychologists, health and medical staff which would not be part of the private sector.


Not for long. Harper is cancelling a lot of those programs. And there is no way Harper is building new prisons to improve or upgrade facilities for prisoners. Please.
The Conservative agenda for crime and punishment is driven by the conservative value- Self Righteous Indignation.

If someone could point me to the studies that show incarceration with intent to punish vs rehabilitation results in lower recidivism rates and better law abiding (convicted) citizens.. I need to get up to speed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fellfromtree said:


> If someone could point me to the studies that show incarceration with intent to punish vs rehabilitation results in lower recidivism rates and better law abiding (convicted) citizens.. I need to get up to speed.



Re-conviction (as opposed to re-arrest) rates in Canada are about 44% for federal offenders.

The recidivism of federal offenders


In the U.S. reconviction rates for the same period run 46.9%.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Reentry Trends in the U.S.: Recidivism

The justice systems are not identical and neither are the laws. Considering that, I don't see a statistically huge difference in results between approaches.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Career civil servants and their unions are the power behind the (elected) throne. They can make or break governments, depending on their willingness to comply with directives. Tell them what you want done and they can do it well, or make it impossible. Fire some of them and get them angry and they will work to rule.





Kosh said:


> Utter nonsense.
> 
> Harper just fired thousands... no-one is working to rule.
> 
> ...


MF is spot on especially for officers, ADMs etc, the higher ups...



> They can make or break governments, depending on their willingness to comply with directives. Tell them what you want done and they can do it well, or make it impossible.


Why else do you think that governments as much as possible "clean house" among the upper management in the Bureaucracy when they come to power ??? Becuase they want "friendlies in their who will do their bidding in the most timely manner possible.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kosh said:


> *Oh, and if the public service is being downsized*, why is the government building a grand new campus for CSEC and DCC on Olgivie? That place is huge. More overspending by the Tories in power, while they cut jobs.


:lmao: From the largest it had ever been... First people complain when the government grows the bureaucracy then they complain when it is downsized... seems there is much desire to have one's cake and to it eat it too...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> No--there is no real hard correlation between population and crime rate.
> 
> All I am saying is that the crime rate is an irrelevant figure if it does not give you the total number of criminals/prisoners introduced into the prison system in any given year. The argument "Harper is building prisons while the crime rate is going down" is not, on its own, a logical argument against building prisons.


Not to mention the fact remains they aren't building prison's just adding cells to existing facilities. I know this fact doesn't play well for those who were claiming that the government would be building new mega prisons... so now that isn't happening so they have to find/generate another "cause cleb"...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> I've been living in a spanish-speaking environment too long - my grasp of english is slipping away.
> 
> I get what you're saying - that Harper may still build prisons for other reasons than the crime rate (substandard institutions, etc.).
> 
> *Replacing or upgrading existing facilities is of course understandable. The thing that has most of us concerned is the entry of the large, corrupt (evidence-based claim) companies that currently run U.S. prisons, and what have - at least on one occasion - been shown to collude with corrupt judges to send more people into the system (to reach that touted "90% full" figure)*.


Look at the facts and instead of generating FUD...



> According to federal government documents obtained by Bloomberg News, the Correctional Service of Canada *“may consider” contracting out certain prison services, such as cleaning and food preparation.*
> 
> CSC officials last May urged Public Safety Minister Vic Toews to discuss Canada’s interest in is *considering the privatization of penitentiary services on a limited basis,”*



The government is talking about POSSIBLY the privatization of *certain services* within the penal system... *not wholesale private prisons.*


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fellfromtree said:


> Not for long. Harper is cancelling a lot of those programs. And there is no way Harper is building new prisons to improve or upgrade facilities for prisoners. Please.
> *The Conservative agenda for crime and punishment is driven by the conservative value- Self Righteous Indignation.*
> 
> If someone could point me to the studies that show incarceration with intent to punish vs rehabilitation results in lower recidivism rates and better law abiding (convicted) citizens.. I need to get up to speed.


:lmao: That "value" is HARDLY the sole domain of conservatives... the left places at least if not more stock in Self Righteous Indignation.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*See? All it takes for Conservatives to clarify their perspectives on social issues is a little time in the slammer....* 

*Conrad Black: Privatizing Prisons 'A Catastrophic Idea' *



> Former media mogul Conrad Black has long been a fan of free markets, but when it comes to prisons, the ex-inmate says profits should have no place.
> 
> Privatizing the country's prions is “a catastrophic idea,” he told The Huffington Post Canada during an editorial lunch meeting.
> 
> ...





> That the government is even considering this avenue amounts to a “confession of failure,” Black argued.
> 
> Private prison companies “absolutely scrape the bottom of the barrel” when looking for employees, and do nothing to reintegrate inmates into society, ....
> 
> “The commodity is the prisoners,” he said.


(HuffingtonPost)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *See? All it takes for Conservatives to clarify their perspectives on social issues is a little time in the slammer....*


Why would you consider Black a conservative? FDR is his hero.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> *See? All it takes for Conservatives to clarify their perspectives on social issues is a little time in the slammer....*
> 
> *Conrad Black: Privatizing Prisons 'A Catastrophic Idea' *
> 
> ...


Once again, the government isn't proposing privatizing prisons... just certain services provided in prison like cleaning...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Why would you consider Black a conservative? FDR is his hero.


_
Seriously, MF? Seriously?_



> On March 5, 2009, Black contributed a piece to the online version of the conservative magazine National Review (NRO). Called 'Roosevelt and the Revisionists' and based on his earlier biography of Roosevelt, it argued that FDR's New Deal was intended to save capitalism, and so deserved conservative support. (Wikipedia)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> _
> Seriously, MF? Seriously?_


Yes. No serious conservative would argue that FDR's policies saved capitalism. These policies extended the Great depression for 5 to 6 years. Black's piece was an interesting example of a thought experiment, but holds no water against FDRs self-confessed left-of-centre bias.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I've always found it funny how whenever a conservative expresses something not in line with current government policy, suddenly he/she is well, not a -real- conservative.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I've always found it funny how whenever a conservative expresses something not in line with current government policy, suddenly he/she is well, not a -real- conservative.


Tell that to David Frum, who went from an intelligent conservative spokesperson to persona non grata within the group of conservatives who feel that they are the way the Republican party should go.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Tell that to David Frum, who went from an intelligent conservative spokesperson to persona non grata within the group of conservatives who feel that they are the way the Republican party should go.


David Frum is a Republican, but not a conservative--he has not been one for years.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> David Frum is a Republican, but not a conservative--he has not been one for years.


i think you have it reversed.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

i-rui said:


> i think you have it reversed.


True. At least this is how David Frum describes himself and how he was viewed in the past.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Maybe this dialogue is more suited for the American political thread than the Canadian Prisons Thread?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> i think you have it reversed.


No. He excoriates Republicans for their positions on public health care, for example. He is clearly arguing on the liberals side of the issue.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

screature said:


> Maybe this dialogue is more suited for the American political thread than the Canadian Prisons Thread?


Agreed.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Private prison firms look to cash in on Canada asylum crackdown*

*Advocates urge Canadian government not to go further down the route of privatising immigration detention
*


> Dramatic changes to Canada's immigration laws expected to come into effect in December will mean that asylum seekers face more restrictions and have less time to make a claim. Advocates fear this will lead to more detentions and further opportunities for private prison operators to cash in.
> 
> Immigration detention is a growth industry around the world, and some of the biggest private security and prison firms are the beneficiaries. In Canada, increased government use of by immigration detention has refugee lawyers and advocates worried, particularly after the passage of the tough new immigration laws in June.


(GuardianUK)


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *Private prison firms look to cash in on Canada asylum crackdown*
> 
> *Advocates urge Canadian government not to go further down the route of privatising immigration detention
> *
> ...


Like Flahrety caving on FATCA, this would seem to be a done deal. As a matter of fact it would seem to be the entire purpose of prison camps for immigrants.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> *Private prison firms look to cash in on Canada asylum crackdown*
> 
> *Advocates urge Canadian government not to go further down the route of privatising immigration detention
> *
> ...


Wrong thread they aren't prisons...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Seems I'm not the only one seeing Emperor Harper hath no clothes....the myth of fiscal management....even this right winger sees through it..
The numbers don't lie.



> 13 mars 2012
> Michel Kelly-Gagnon
> *Harper's legacy could be that of big spender*
> www.torontosun.com/michel-kelly-gagnon, p. Web
> ...


and from the Sun no less.....

longing for the good old days of Chretien and Martin !!!??? :yikes:

must be bad.....how embarrassing for the right wing....but then - Harper is an embarrassment for Canada in any number of ways....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc, why is this posted in the Canadian Prisons Thread?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*How many lives has this son of a bitch ruined? Kids as young as 10 years old imprisoned? Another example of what happens when the profit motive overrides public safety* 

*US judge receives 28-year jail term for his role in kids-for-cash kickbacks*












> An American judge known for his harsh and autocratic courtroom manner was jailed for 28 years for conspiring with private prisons to hand young offenders maximum sentences in return for kickbacks amounting to millions of dollars.
> 
> Mark Ciavarella Jnr was ordered to pay $1.2m (£770,000) in restitution after he was found to be a “figurehead” in the conspiracy that saw thousands of children unjustly punished in the name of profit in the case that became known as “kids for cash”.





> ...taking more than $2m in bribes from the builder of the PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care detention centres and extorting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the facilities’ co-owner. Ciavarella Jnr filled the beds of the private prisons with children as young as 10, many of them first-time offenders convicted minor crimes.


(Independent)


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

You gotta love a system where Judges voted into office is sooooooooooo much better. You gotta love a system of private prisons that are corporations that have a structure to be able pay kickbacks.

Must be some sort of invisible hand thing that makes this so much better, than one run by the Government.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The problem is that the judge could know which detention centres the kids would wind up in. That creates the profit motive for an evil man. However, if he had not been tried and convicted, he could certainly have been voted out of office.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Just how horrible is the prison system south of the border? John Oliver's take:*





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*A summary of a few points that have gone before:*



Macfury said:


> I believe they should be privatized _because_ they are essential. Too important to be left to bumbling governments. Government is better at hag-riding private providers than providing services itself





screature said:


> Because bloated bureaucracies by their very nature create inefficiencies and there is always the public purse funded by public tax dollars and the potential to merely increase taxes to cover the inflated costs. On the other hand private institutions can and often do run more efficiently





screature said:


> Look at the facts and instead of generating FUD... The government is talking about POSSIBLY the privatization of *certain services* within the penal system... *not wholesale private prisons.*





screature said:


> Once again, the government isn't proposing privatizing prisons... just certain services provided in prison like cleaning...


_*...which leads us to this bit of news...*_

*Ontario to take back control of private super-jail*

Canada's only privately run jail, in Penetanguishene, Ont., will return to public control on Saturday after a performance evaluation found *a public jail of equivalent size had better security, prisoner health care, and reduced repeat offender rates.*

The Central North Correctional Centre, one of two identical maximum-security super-jails in Ontario built by the former Conservative government, houses more than 1,000 prisoners and has been under the watchful eye of a private firm for the last five years.

The other jail in Lindsay, near Peterborough, was kept under provincial control.

"We found that* in basically every single area, the outcomes were better in the publicly run facilities,*" Ontario Community Safety Minister Monte Kwinter told the CBC.

The government initially turned the Penetanguishene jail over to a private firm with experience running similar facilities in the United States. But six months ago, as the contract was set to expire, the government compared the two institutions and found *the private jail fell short.*

The report comparing the two prisons found the private jail also used fewer staff and ran fewer programs to help inmates.​
(CBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why should I be surprised that lefty Wynne wants more power?


----------

