Sending Kids to jail for profit

[Lycurgus]

This is nothing new, jail is big business. There are 2 million people locked up in america 85% of them black. We are in need of a 2nd look at the law books, and the judges, I think white judges hate black people, and that's why they become judges, so they can sentence blacks to 100 years.

Idiot!

 

[Tech_Esq]

still i bet blacks on average end up stricter sentences than whites, for the same crime.

Well, I can only speak to my own experience defending folks accused of crimes all over Northern Virginia. In general, I didn't find that to be true. I was able to get good deals for my guilty clients that were black. I never found that it was easier to get a deal for a white client. In fact, in some cases, I found the the Commonwealth's Attorney was unwilling to deal at all when I had a white client. Now, that is usually based on the facts and whether the CA thought they could beat you. (In the case I'm thinking of, an Assault and Battery case, I gave her the beat down ).

I did however see some indication of, shall we say "how things used to be." I saw a retired judge (they often substitute) in Fairfax county, while court was on a break but he was still on the bench, look up and saw a black guy that he recognized and who was on the docket. He said, "Henry, stand up." He did. The judge continued, "You're going to the rock pile. Do you know you're going to the rock pile?" Henry replied, "No, judge." The judge continued, "You got some friends down there, Henry? Cuz, you're going down to the rock pile? Alright Henry, sit down."

Guess where Henry went.

But, prejudices went all kinds of ways. We had another retired judge in my county that had it in for North Carolina truckers. God help you if you were a North Carolina trucker that did something bad on I-95 in Prince William County. More than likely, you're going to jail for a traffic offense. But, most folks got to see a good idea of how trials go in my county during the Lorena Bobbitt trial. Those were the same CAs I used to deal with.

 

[doeton]

still i bet blacks on average end up stricter sentences than whites, for the same crime.

Well, I can only speak to my own experience defending folks accused of crimes all over Northern Virginia. In general, I didn't find that to be true. I was able to get good deals for my guilty clients that were black. I never found that it was easier to get a deal for a white client. In fact, in some cases, I found the the Commonwealth's Attorney was unwilling to deal at all when I had a white client. Now, that is usually based on the facts and whether the CA thought they could beat you. (In the case I'm thinking of, an Assault and Battery case, I gave her the beat down ).
.

so fair enough with a good attorney...

what about blacks with the public defender...

and may be it's more an issue of wealth vs. non wealth

 

[Tech_Esq]

still i bet blacks on average end up stricter sentences than whites, for the same crime.

Well, I can only speak to my own experience defending folks accused of crimes all over Northern Virginia. In general, I didn't find that to be true. I was able to get good deals for my guilty clients that were black. I never found that it was easier to get a deal for a white client. In fact, in some cases, I found the the Commonwealth's Attorney was unwilling to deal at all when I had a white client. Now, that is usually based on the facts and whether the CA thought they could beat you. (In the case I'm thinking of, an Assault and Battery case, I gave her the beat down ).
.

so fair enough with a good attorney...

what about blacks with the public defender...

and may be it's more an issue of wealth vs. non wealth

We don't have PDs in Virginia. We have "court appointed" lawyers. Private attorneys put their names on the list to be available for appointment to indigent clients. Attorneys are paid a flat fee based on the severity of the crime. Like $300 for a DUI.

There weren't many super lawyers on the list, but there were quite a few very competent experienced attorneys on the list. Chances are that most accused got a good lawyer. I'll tell you there was a lot more good lawyers than good fact patterns. Most of them ranged damned guilty to guilty as hell. It was hard for them to show up in my office without having freely admitted to the police that they were guilty. WITHOUT THE POLICE ASKING THE QUESTION!!! Please don't talk to the police!

You really want to know what it is? Knowing how the legal system game is played. I had a friend get accused of a DUI and Reckless Driving etc. He came to me because he knew I used to practice law in the area. Here's the deal, you don't need a flashy $1,000 an hour lawyer, you need a lawyer who knows the system. The guy I sent him to charged him $2,000. He had been a cop, then got a law degree. He'd been here for 20 years. He knew everything about every judge and every CA. He knew which judges were best, which CAs he could work with everything down the line. The guy walked with a Reckless Driving, they dropped the other Reckless. He got a $700 fine, and 60 days on the license (with driving for work privileges). No jail, no DUI.

That's how people with money game the system. Oh, also, in the plea negotiations, he offered another $200 to drop the license suspension another 30 days from 90 to 60. How is a poor person going to do that? In the vast scheme of things, this is a trivial example but this game is the same one that happens at every level.

 

[Agnapostate]

This should serve as an important indication of the fact that juvenile courts often remain "kangaroo courts" despite the guidelines established by In re Gault.

 

[Amanda]

It seems the argument should be against privatizing judges not the prisons. But whatever, it's not privatization that causes things like this to happen, it's corruption and greed and the public sector is hardly immune to that either.

I would like to further discuss the points Killuminati raised, but I'm not sure the conversation can stay rational. Is anyone up for another thread where we talk about it and play nice?

Who was bribing the judges ?

It was the people who own the prisons and profit from the government by increasing the number of prisoners.

No profit no bribes.

why do you refuse to make sense?

So then... making sense would be to decide that corruption only exists in the private sector? I think there's enough examples of corruption with public officials to discredit that theory.

 

[Agnapostate]

One teen was given a 90-day sentence for having parodied a school administrator online. Such unwarranted detentions left "both children and parents feeling bewildered, violated and traumatized," center lawyers said.

So there were also likely violations of Tinker v. Des Moines involved...

 

[garyd]

First 90% of them aren't black. Can't be because more than a 1/3 are Latino...

 

[Tech_Esq]

This should serve as an important indication of the fact that juvenile courts often remain "kangaroo courts" despite the guidelines established by In re Gault.

The most disgusting examples of Star Chamber proceedings I was ever involved with as a lawyer was representing two different student in front of the school board.

Here's a description of what happened. The principal was asked to read the charge. The principal was then asked if there was any evidence. The principal then read anonymous statements from other students to support the charge. The accused was asked to ascribe motivation for the statements made if he denied their veracity. There was no opportunity to know who made the statements let alone confront and cross examine the makers of the statements. So on the basis of unsworn and anonymous statements, students are expelled.

Both students I represented were black by the way. One had tremendous community support and members of the NAACP were present during the meeting. I raised the cross examination issue so many times in the meeting that one board member screamed at me that, "This is not a court room and we do not have right to cross examine here!" and if I brought it up one more time they would have me removed from the room.

The other case involved an assault on a teacher. Same procedure, same result. But, one difference. There would be a subsequent criminal case. At the first date, we all showed up for trial, but the teacher was called away on an emergency so the case was continued. One of the "witnesses," a maker of this unsworn, anonymous statements approached me after we left the court room. He said, pointing at my client, "Is that the girl they say hit the teacher?" I replied that it was. He said, "That's not who I saw." I had the criminal case thrown out on the basis of his statement.

You think they reconsidered the expulsion? Not a fucking chance!

 

[Tech_Esq]

One teen was given a 90-day sentence for having parodied a school administrator online. Such unwarranted detentions left "both children and parents feeling bewildered, violated and traumatized," center lawyers said.

So there were also likely violations of Tinker v. Des Moines involved...

It's a little thin on facts, but I don't see how Tinker applies. If it was a truly online, not school related site, then Tinker shouldn't apply. If it was a school sponsored site, then Tinker probably would apply. But remember if Tinker doesn't apply the school would not have the right to restrict speech at all. The fact the the courts are doing it and not the schools is worse, it's just a plain and simple violation of first amendment rights.

 

[Agnapostate]

It's a little thin on facts, but I don't see how Tinker applies. If it was a truly online, not school related site, then Tinker shouldn't apply. If it was a school sponsored site, then Tinker probably would apply. But remember if Tinker doesn't apply the school would not have the right to restrict speech at all. The fact the the courts are doing it and not the schools is worse, it's just a plain and simple violation of first amendment rights.

It may apply, considering that Morse v. Frederick was judged to be "on school grounds." I'm not relying on their accurate interpretation of reality, you see. I'm relying on them stretching jurisdictive claims to an absurd level.

 

[Skeptik]

Well, I can only speak to my own experience defending folks accused of crimes all over Northern Virginia. In general, I didn't find that to be true. I was able to get good deals for my guilty clients that were black. I never found that it was easier to get a deal for a white client. In fact, in some cases, I found the the Commonwealth's Attorney was unwilling to deal at all when I had a white client. Now, that is usually based on the facts and whether the CA thought they could beat you. (In the case I'm thinking of, an Assault and Battery case, I gave her the beat down ).
.

so fair enough with a good attorney...

what about blacks with the public defender...

and may be it's more an issue of wealth vs. non wealth

We don't have PDs in Virginia. We have "court appointed" lawyers. Private attorneys put their names on the list to be available for appointment to indigent clients. Attorneys are paid a flat fee based on the severity of the crime. Like $300 for a DUI.

There weren't many super lawyers on the list, but there were quite a few very competent experienced attorneys on the list. Chances are that most accused got a good lawyer. I'll tell you there was a lot more good lawyers than good fact patterns. Most of them ranged damned guilty to guilty as hell. It was hard for them to show up in my office without having freely admitted to the police that they were guilty. WITHOUT THE POLICE ASKING THE QUESTION!!! Please don't talk to the police!

You really want to know what it is? Knowing how the legal system game is played. I had a friend get accused of a DUI and Reckless Driving etc. He came to me because he knew I used to practice law in the area. Here's the deal, you don't need a flashy $1,000 an hour lawyer, you need a lawyer who knows the system. The guy I sent him to charged him $2,000. He had been a cop, then got a law degree. He'd been here for 20 years. He knew everything about every judge and every CA. He knew which judges were best, which CAs he could work with everything down the line. The guy walked with a Reckless Driving, they dropped the other Reckless. He got a $700 fine, and 60 days on the license (with driving for work privileges). No jail, no DUI.

That's how people with money game the system. Oh, also, in the plea negotiations, he offered another $200 to drop the license suspension another 30 days from 90 to 60. How is a poor person going to do that? In the vast scheme of things, this is a trivial example but this game is the same one that happens at every level.

As I said earlier, the color that counts isn't black vs white, but green vs no green.

 

[catzmeow]

Here is a prime example why prisons and jails should NOT be privatized.

I agree that this is a horrific abuse of power. However, I will also suggest that there is a significant dearth of effective juvenile alternatives to incarceration in many systems. The Glen Mills School, located outside of Philadelphia, was used as an alternative to incarceration by many of our juvenile court judges in my former state. In my personal experience, the kids who were sent to Glen Mills got far more out of that program, including the opportunity to play sports on the high school level, obtain a high school diploma, and attend college on scholarship as a result of this programming, than they did out of any juvenile facility in our state.

Yes, privatization can be bad, but that's a generalization that doesn't hold across the board. Some privatized programs are good, others deliver significantly better programming for less money than state-run facilities. The real issue is holding JUDGES accountable to make good sentences, and follow-up on the kids on their caseloads on a regular basis. This can be accomplished through audits of the facilities, interviews with incarcerated offenders, and audits of sentencing and reviews on the parts of judges. Just taking privatization off the table, and concluding that all private facilities are bad bad bad because profit is evil is stupid.

But then, what do I expect...given the OP's propensity for unbiased thought.

 

[Agnapostate]

Just taking privatization off the table, and concluding that all private facilities are bad bad bad because profit is evil is stupid.

Just depicting opposition to privatization as an unsupported conspiracy theory of some variety is stupid. Unsurprising, but regardless...Privatization would naturally lend itself to a greater degree of coercive control due to managerial discretion (such as imprisonment of youth when no illegal acts have been committed, but simply because private facilities have been authorized to act in loco parentis), which has traditionally been the result of forcibly shipping youth to privately owned behavior modification facilities, for instance. If you had any familiarity with the BMF industry, you'd know there's a reason why Casa By the Sea was shut down and why Tranquility Bay is on its way out.

 

[catzmeow]

Just taking privatization off the table, and concluding that all private facilities are bad bad bad because profit is evil is stupid.

Just depicting opposition to privatization as an unsupported conspiracy theory of some variety is stupid. Unsurprising, but regardless...Privatization would naturally lend itself to a greater degree of coercive control due to managerial discretion (such as imprisonment of youth when no illegal acts have been committed, but simply because private facilities have been authorized to act in loco parentis), which has traditionally been the result of forcibly shipping youth to privately owned behavior modification facilities, for instance. If you had any familiarity with the BMF industry, you'd know there's a reason why Casa By the Sea was shut down and why Tranquility Bay is on its way out.

Using large words doesn't mean that you've contributed anything to this discussion. The OP ended with a statement that generalized "privatization = bad." Your point is off topic. The topic discussed youth who were inappropriately sentenced IN COURT for delinquent offenses. If you'd like to discuss private facilities that serve inpatient youth at the request of their parents, that is a different subject.

For the record, all residential placements of youth in the juvenile justice system are coercive. That's the nature of being an offender in that system. You've broken the law, and have been sentenced to a rehabilitative/punitive sanction resulting in loss of freedom and incarceration in some kind of juvenile facility. I've seen no evidence, whatsoever, that privatized juvenile detention centers are more coercive than public detention centers. And, I've been in plenty of them in a professional capacity.

What is egregious in this case is that the delinquent acts did not justify such a harsh sentence, but the judges benefitted financially from rendering it.

More often, in my experience, working with a number of different states, judges wind up putting youth into less secure facilities such as group homes and foster care, because residential beds are simply not available for all of the youth whose offense histories warrant such sanctions. In many states, there is such a serious shortage of state run juvenile facilities that private companies have stepped in to fill the gap in the juvenile system. And, the reason that the system is using these programs is simple:

The biggest cost for juvenile residential beds is a bricks/mortar cost.

Contracting with a private contractor who has an existing facility allows you to pay for PROGRAMMING and OPERATION costs, and not CONSTRUCTION costs. Public facilities are expensive because you end up paying for all three.

I don't work for a private contractor, and I have no reason to support them other than I've seen at firsthand that in many cases, they are cheaper and offer better juvenile rehabilitation programming than do state-run facilities.

I've worked at the policy-making level, trying to determine the most cost-effective manner of incarcerating juvenile offenders. More often than not, private providers are cheaper than state-run facilities. And, if states are experiencing bed shortages in public-run facilities, they are going to turn to these private facilities. This beats the hell out of leaving dangerous offenders on the streets to create new victims.

Are all privatized facilities good ones? Of course not. But this can be controlled and monitored to ensure that juvenile offenders are protected.

However, I would not be surprised, AT ALL, if you had intensive experience with in-patient facilities.

 

[Agnapostate]

Using large words doesn't mean that you've contributed anything to this discussion. The OP ended with a statement that generalized "privatization = bad." Your point is off topic. The topic discussed youth who were inappropriately sentenced IN COURT for delinquent offenses. If you'd like to discuss private facilities that serve inpatient youth at the request of their parents, that is a different subject.

For the record, all residential placements of youth in the juvenile justice system are coercive. That's the nature of being an offender in that system. You've broken the law, and have been sentenced to a rehabilitative/punitive sanction resulting in loss of freedom and incarceration in some kind of juvenile facility. I've seen no evidence, whatsoever, that privatized juvenile detention centers are more coercive than public detention centers. And, I've been in plenty of them in a professional capacity.

However, I would not be surprised, AT ALL, if you had intensive experience with in-patient facilities.

Nor am I surprised that you babble on without the slightest element of coherence.

If you had been paying attention, (a rarity in your case), and had the slightest degree of familiarity with the BMF industry, you'd be aware of the fact that serving parental requests is not their sole function, and that several (possibly WWASP schools) have had referrals from the juvenile system.

But then again, someone who misunderstands the origin and nature of compulsory schooling so poorly, who lacks the basic knowledge to distinguish between "childrens' rights" and "youth rights," who is ignorant of the statistical evidence regarding teenage pregnancy, and who misrepresents the relevant research on motivations for rape so egregiously really can't be expected to make intelligent comment.

 

[catzmeow]

If you had been paying attention, (a rarity in your case), and had the slightest degree of familiarity with the BMF industry, you'd be aware of the fact that serving parental requests is not their sole function, and that several (possibly WWASP schools) have had referrals from the juvenile system.

I'm actually quite familiar with this concept. Our state often utilized the VisionQuest, Glen Mills Schools and Colors of Success residential programs in lieu of residential placement in a secure juvenile facility. Sentenced offenders rarely ran (in VisionQuest, they were living in wilderness areas, at Glen Mills, they were 1500 miles from home), and the recidivism rates with young offenders who left the Vision Quest program were significantly lower than those who were sentenced to secure care in state-run programs, even with similar criminal histories.

Some of these facilities are good, others aren't. And, I offered ways in which states can ensure that juveniles in these programs are protected:

Audits of programs
Interviews with incarcerated youth
Audits of judges' sentencing records and frequent reviews (in person) with the sentenced youth

The third item would have caught the dirty-handed judges far earlier.

The difference between me and you, pedophile, is that I've spent my career working to REFORM the juvenile justice system to protect the community AND young offenders. I actually know what I'm talking about here. You're just talking from your personal backpack of issues.

Frankly, the average California juvenile offender (thinking about your state of resident here) would be far better off in Vision Quest or Glen Mills than he would be in the CYA. They're safer, offer a higher caliber of programming, offer educational opportunities that are equivalent to mainstream high schools, and they aren't fucking hotbeds of gang recruitment and activity.

 

[catzmeow]

But then again, someone who misunderstands the origin and nature of compulsory schooling so poorly, who lacks the basic knowledge to distinguish between "childrens' rights" and "youth rights," who is ignorant of the statistical evidence regarding teenage pregnancy, and who misrepresents the relevant research on motivations for rape so egregiously really can't be expected to make intelligent comment.

Awww, do you have a crush on me, little boy? That's so sweet. Hopeless, but sweet.

 

[Agnapostate]

Awww, do you have a crush on me, little boy? That's so sweet. Hopeless, but sweet.

Please restrict your attractions to little boys to the other tabs on your monitor. We don't need to hear about them.

 

[Agnapostate]

I'm actually quite familiar with this concept.

Wrong, as the remainder of that post clearly indicated. Since you apparently lack the ability to differentiate between VisionQuest and WWASP, I'll assume my job here is done.