Tribune photo by Lane Christiansen
The Tribune reports today that the Thomson Correctional Center in Carroll County is being considered as a possible destination for prisoners currently held at Guantanamo Bay. The Thomson Correctional Center was completed in 2001 at a cost of $145 million, right before the state's budget fell apart. Built to hold 1,600 maximum-security prisoners, it currently houses fewer than 200 minimum-security inmates. Carroll County, and particularly the town of Thomson, have suffered because of the failure of the prison to ever fully open:
The locals seem to like the idea. The plan being considered claims that 2,300 to 3,200 jobs would be created, and $790 million to $1 billion brought into the Illinois economy over the next few years. With numbers like that, maybe Governor Quinn could reconsider his plan to grant early releases as a cost-saving measure. I feel a little better about the plan (in spite of its having every appearance of a typical Illinois insider deal) because the state would essentially sell the facility to the federal Bureau of Prisons, who would run the prison.
All I can say is, it's about time we plucked those detainees out of the tropical climate they've been enjoying all these years during their open-ended confinement. Forget water-boarding--give them a taste of midwestern winter and Illinois politics. That would really teach them a lesson.
14 Comments
Message from Montie said:
There's something wrong with a country that is disappointed that there are less people in prison. There's something extremely wharped about people who are excited about the idea of prison jobs. If anything I'd hope there was a lack of necessity for prison jobs. When people would prefer money over people living the straight and narrow, that concerns me. This also backs up my belief that people are arrested on trumped charges and the state makes a profit from that. The more people in prison, the more money being made. I STILL stand by my original opinion that I don't support , I agree that the non-violent prisoners should be released and if they are given jobs they will NOT repeat crimes and I'm fine with less jobs in prisons. Nobody should be excited about the idea of imprisoning anybody. That should be a last resort instead of folks treating it like it's Disneyworld or something. Oooh, let's take them there!
Curmudgeon said:
"...the non-violent prisoners should be released and if they are given jobs they will NOT repeat crimes..."
Uh, Montie, just what kinds of jobs do you suggest they be given? Jobs where they have to handle money (and, just to make it more interesting, YOUR money)? Jobs where they have to have some sort of a skill set (maybe, say, teaching YOUR kids, or patrolling YOUR neighborhood)? Jobs in construction (oh, wait, there aren't enough construction jobs right now, except in building prisons!)? I suspect many of the so-called non-violent prisoners don't have a lot of qualifications for employment to begin with! And even if they do, there are plenty of people who aren't convicted criminals, non-violent or not, who are looking for work too!
Joe the Cop said:
I wouldn't say that people are "excited" about prison jobs. The unemployment rate in Thomson is close to 12%, and the rate for Carroll County is close to 11%. I'm sure the residents of Carroll County would much rather have well-paying jobs in a sector other than prisons, but that's not happening.
I also wished "there was a lack of necessity for prison jobs". I wish for a lot of nice things that will probably never happen, as a matter of fact.
Despite what you believe, prisons are most definitely not a money-making venture in Illinois. Prisons represent a huge amount of money spent on an enterprise that does not generate any real product or useful service. If you truly believe that the profit motive drives the arrest of multiple subjects on "trumped up charges", then I'm afraid you're entering conspiracyland.
chicago123 said:
I just wanted to say a few things here.
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by saying that prisons are not money-making ventures. I assume that you mean that they do not provide a direct return on the State's investments. Another way to look at prisons' function would be that funding them might actually be an efficient use of government expenditures because they provide more indirect social benefits. I, personally, don't think this argument is borne out in reality, but nonetheless it's the argument.
So far as the 'profit motive' being in conspiracyland. Well, I agree that the state doesn't make a direct profit by creating and maintaining the use of prisons, but I think it is undeniable that there are certain political constituencies that absolutely 'profit' from prisons. It's not that the state is profiting, it's that Carroll County is profiting. They are receiving all of the collateral benefits from having the prison in their community (i.e. jobs), but they are footing only a portion of the cost. The entirety of the IL tax-base is funding the creation and maintenance of the prison; Carrol County is a tiny fraction of that funding source. So clearly there is an incredible political incentive for a local politician to push for prisons to be located within their communities. I don't think that qualifies as a conspiracy.
I don't know if there is a connection between the 'trumping up of charges' and prison capacity. I would guess that in some situations it is relevant and in most it is not. But I do think that there is a general relationship between the creation of prisons and the number of arrests or the overall criminalization of certain acts. Simply put, if the state did not have the prison capacity to hold everyone they wouldn't be able to criminalize as much as they do. They would have to find other ways of dealing with certain acts. I think forcing the state to figure out methods of dealing with individuals who do socially undesirable acts in a way that is more efficient in the long-term would probably be a good thing. But, who knows. My only point is that dealing with people by putting them in prison is an inevitable solution. It is a choice we've made as a society. It's also a choice that might be extremely expensive while providing a uncertain benefit.
Also, just one other little thing. Prisons do provide a 'useful service,' right? The service these days is removing individuals from the general population. It was once bout rehabilitating individuals for re-entry into society.
chicago123 said:
Edit: My only point is that dealing with people by putting them in prison IS NOT an inevitable solution.
chicago123 said:
Also, Joe the Cop, I would be interested in your take on the life-imprisonment of juveniles. The Supreme Court will be ruling on its constitutionality soon enough, but I think there is a lot of room for debate. I believe IL allows for life sentences for juveniles, although I don't think it is actually utilized.
Joe the Cop said:
I believed Montie was saying that many people were being arrested "on trumped up charges" in order to generate profits. I maintain that is a wrong, bordering on absurd, idea, at least here in Illinois. My experience over the past 20 years is that it is not an easy thing to get someone locked up in a penitentiary. I can give numerous examples, and that's a good topic for a future post.
That being said, there are other places in the country (Tennessee, Texas and Colorado come to mind) that have prisons run by private, for profit, corporations. There are currently something like 250 private correctional facilities (mostly in the south and west) holding around 120,000 prisoners.
Obviously (this is Illinois, one of the most corrupt places in the nation) there are profits involved, usually generated in the form of sweetheart deals for construction, contracts to run services and jobs for cronies. In 2008 the former head of the IDOC, Don Snyder, was sentenced to 2 years in federal prison for taking bribes from lobbyists while he was running the IDOC.
I do think that we need to find ways of dealing with drug offenders (I mean possession only) that don't involve incarceration.
chicago123 said:
Unfortunately I was reading your previous post outside of the context of Montie's post. I still think my points are valid, despite not being specifically pertinent to the conversation between you and Montie.
I agree that there is no direct profit incentive spurring on increased criminalization or more liberal arrest policies (or trumping up of charges). That is, when officers of the law are considering arresting someone they, or their superiors dictating policies, are not thinking about making money off of the arrest and subsequent incarceration. I still do think, however, that the systems ability to deal with a certain number of prisoners directly dictates how policing occurs and crimes are legislated. So perhaps there is not a "profit motive," but I think the "cost restriction" via prison capacity must be influential. By funding the creation and maintenance of incarceration facilities you certainly are not limiting arrests. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. But it is something to consider. Importantly, I think it sometimes hides some of the less visible costs of policies of criminalization that many have come to see as inevitable.
Also, as a side-note while the private entities running prisons are making a profit, the state is still operating at a loss. It might be less of a loss, but it's still a loss. Interestingly, I don't think any of those states have allowed for the privatization of death row. That's a whole different conversation though.
Joe the Cop said:
I remember when Cook County jail was so overcrowded (back in the early/mid-90's) that there were inmates sleeping on the floor, and anyone with a bond set under $25,000 or so was almost automatically I-bonded to reduce crowding. It never had an impact on how any department in Cook County did policing, or dictated who got locked up and who didn't.
I'm curious--when you say "the overall criminalization of certain acts" or "policies of criminalization that many have come to see as inevitable" what crimes, exactly, are you talking about? I assume it's drug possession, so please tell me if I'm wrong.
chicago123 said:
I understand what you are saying, but there are constitutional limits to the conditions in which you place prisoners.
I can refine what I mean by the criminalization of acts by breaking it into two parts.
First, there are certain offenses that shouldn't be criminalized, or in the alternative should not be punished by jail time. All types of drug charges are a notable category. More than half of IL drug sentences (note: drug sentences are the largest category of incarcerated individuals), are for simple possession or small amounts. There are examples of property crimes that could also be handled differently. Prison shouldn't be societies only response to certain acts.
To a certain extent I think drug addiction should also be taken into account for other crimes also. Eight-six percent of male arrestees in chicago test positive for at least one illegal drug at the time of their arrest. Addiction drives people, and solving that problem is in societies interest. Maybe prison will work, maybe it wont. Thus far, it doesn't seem to be.
The second aspect of the idea that I was unartfully trying to convey was that certain offenses are often subject to absolutely absurd lengths of incarceration, simply because they are repeat offenders. A majority of the recidivists in chicago are sent back to jail because of a parole violation, not because of a new offense.
So I guess when I am saying "criminalization," I am referring more generally to what actions we give prison sentences for, in light of how long the sentences are. I simply think there could be better ways of spending state money.
Mare Swallow said:
joe - i'm totally mixed on this. truth? no, i don't want gitmo detainees here. and, what, with the other prisons (cook county?) releasing prisoners to save money, why not send those offenders to Thomson? Seems to me if one prison is overcrowded, and one is empty, you send the criminals to the empty prison.
maybe i'm oversimplifying it. your thoughts?
Joe the Cop said:
Cook County Jail has room, it's not even filled to capacity right now. The Illinois Department of Corrections has room also, but it's releasing prisoners early to save money (about $5 million). Thomson Correctional Center has been vacant for 8 years, and the state sees a chance to sell it to the federal Bureau of Prisons to house Gitmo prisoners. We have room in Illinois, we just don't have money.
dude said:
Quinn sells prison, takes money and rewards his pals...... why should he care about Illinois he won't be Governor for long.
Moshucat said:
I must say that I'm mixed also. I want to see the town get some much needed jobs but at what cost. Federal prisons seem to run better than State and County. Besides what is the beef? Gitmo is a necessary evil and I don't agree with torture but they must be housed somewhere and if it improves life for a dying town then so be it.
I'm not a supporter of Quinn and I hope that we get a more viable candidate to run for the seat soon.
Leave a Comment?
What your comment will look like:
said: