Eliminate the For-Profit Prison Industry

Profit is an unacceptable motive for incarceration.

sponsored by Roger Wilcox • co-sponsors: (1)Become a Co-sponsor

primary topic: Criminal Justice
secondary topics: Liberties (Civil)

STAR RATING — CLICK TO RATE
82%
BIPARTISAN RATING

Prison industry lobbying efforts to increase rates and terms of incarceration provide clear evidence that the profit motive is a corrupting influence on our justice system. It is not only unethical but immoral to consider and receive financial gain from another person's incarceration.

A bill must be introduced and law passed to ban and phase out for-profit prisons over a three year period.

Op-eds

Completely corrupt

by Naomi Ross on 04/08/13

I live in WA state, where the state is trying, oftentimes to no avail, to extract fines from those convicted of a crime. Many people end up back in jail after the original sentence, given warrants for non-payment. They conceal the ugly truth by calling it probation violation, usually. Most of the people in this predicament, myself included, don't have any money, so we are more likely to do more time, over and over, for the same charge. They keep summoning me to court every month, to explain why I haven't paid, and so I can show them that I'm not paying because I really can't. They would be the first to know if I had any money/wages/assets, and they would seize them for payment, which has been done to me in the past.

Stop jailing people for profit and prolonging the misery of being involved in the criminal "justice" system.

Submit an Op-ed

Name
   
Email
   
Subject:
 
Op-ed:
 

 

Op-ed Guidelines
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.

Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).

Your Ad Here