Jump to content

Talk:CoreCivic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments through June 2008

[edit]

The hyperlink leads you to the entry about John Horne, a Scottish geologist who died in 1928. I don't think he's making those board meetings too often these days. 66.65.57.234 20:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Whole "Olympic Model" section is lifted directly from CCA's website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.54.75 (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that most of the references for this page are from sources in ideological opposition to prison privatization. The page also implies that noncriminal immigrants and their children are being held by virtue of corporate policy, rather than federal immigration law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.171.129 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references' ideological stances are immaterial; is there an issue with the cited information? 66.169.239.162 (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This article lists a "Tom Beasley" as a co-founder of CCA, and links to the Tom Beasley page. However, that page contains a bio of a football player, with no indication of his involvement with CCA. Are they the same person? If not, the link should be changed; if so, the Tom Beasley article should be edited to include the information about CCA. Rangergordon (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

impartiality?

[edit]

I would have like to seen more research into the cons of privatization. Such as the lack of information that a private organization/corporation is obligated to share with the public. Pivate Coroporations do no need to accept or reply to Public Infomation request from citizens. latinguy2009 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

CCA's record on prison riots is completely missing from this article, though I found three separate reports in less than ten minutes with Google. Some more work needs to be done. Patrij (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This whole article reads like a CCA sales brochure. The article talks about independent research that supports private management of prisons, yet does not refer to the equal amount of studies that discourage said private management. It does not also mention Deer Park Prison in Victoria, Australia, that was purchased back by the Victorian government after a number of contract breaches. See "Dame Phyllis Frost Centre" on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.102.161.75 (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's complete BS. You get the impression after reading this press release article that CCA is a loving family-friendly rehabilitation cooperative, and that they treats prisoners as people, not commodities to profit off. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 18:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree that the entire article is highly impartial, and that most of the content is Pro-CCA or Pro-privatization of prison management. Much of the content is more about touting CCA's supposed superior quality and standards and not about imparting information in a neutral manner. The quality of this article is so terrible that I think that it really needs to be rewritten entirely. --Felojiro (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article is below sub-standard. It reads like a press release, and fails to note any of the numerous scandals involving CCA and their prisons. Don't Be Evil (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if we need a rewrite as much as the article expanded to include sourced mentions of CCA's lobbying efforts to increase prison sentences as well as mainstream concerns of private prison management. -- --Knulclunk (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write

[edit]

I have reorganized the article without removing any information. I will add more info shortly.--Knulclunk (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unsourced rant

[edit]

The last section of the article was an unsourced rant. Though it mentions a source, it is unclear what is from the source and what is the editor's personal opinion. I've copied it below:

== CCA inmate didn't leave cell to shower for 9 mos. ==
Source: By KATE HOWARD, Tennessean (TN), March 24, 2008
While other inmates at the Metro Detention Facility took an hour out of their cells most days, a mentally ill inmate named Frank Horton never left his cell for any recreation or a shower -- for nine straight months. It's unclear if he even saw a doctor.
Living conditions for the inmate, a nonviolent offender before entering prison, changed only after an employee complained to the Metro Public Health Department on Jan. 31 and he was forced out for a shower and a mental health evaluation.
The situation raises questions about the treatment of inmates at the 1,200-bed prison where many of Nashville's convicted felons serve their time.
...... Under Metro's contract with CCA, the Davidson County Sheriff's Office oversees the policies of the prison. The health department monitors the health records of its prisoners, as it does at the county jails.
According to Hall, the state of Tennessee pays the sheriff's office about $17 million a year that is used to pay CCA for operating the prison.
Is the private for profit Prison CCA earning its money at the expense of human suffering, and improper care of those intrusted to its Custody?
They save money by a diet without any fresh fruit, ground turkey meat and diet heavy in starch. With a sweetened drink with a LARGE Sign over it saying it is known to cause cancer. Improper medical care. Keeping an inmate and charging the state for care 2 and 3 months after the inmate has been parolled for release. Not giving them a set of clothing when released. The parolled inmate is only giving an ill fitting pair of pants from a second hand store. No shirt...No coat...No hat. You leave released from prison custody with the issued underwear, and shoes you bought or were issued. A cheque for 100 dollars. This is happened at the CCA Shelby Montana. The mayor of Shelby (an eye physician) makes extra money by charging the state for glasses. Two pair after I was issued a new pair one month pryor at the State Prison before being transfered to CCA.

Normally I take it upon myself to look into such things, but I can't at the moment. Any editor is welcome to fix the section (provide proper refs, make it clear what is from the article, remove POV) and re-insert it into the article. But it should be called "CCA inmate didn't leave cell to shower for 9 mos.". It should instead be referenced under a "criticism" section or something similar. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unrelated quote

[edit]

In order to remove opinions and bias from page, deleted quote from Bill Maher Anourse (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a subset of journalists and columnists who, when they opine on a subject, it's notable. Maher is one of these. In the name of neutrality, though, I'd support the inclusion of any countering opinions. —C.Fred (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like some indication of why that section is included is necessary. I would not be opposed to expanding it to include broader discussion than just on columnist, but I can't see removing it. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found quote to offer neutrality Esruon (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Detainees Death section

[edit]

Section contained information that was not sourced, information that was sourced came from an opinion based organization and reflected opinion of author. Link to news article was from non-English paper and could not substantiate the content. Anourse (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call the New York Times an opinion-based organization. As for the Mexican newspaper, have any Spanish speakers vetted it to see if it does support the claim? —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, the NYT meets WP:RS. The article in El Universal does seem to support the claim made. I think it might be worth adding that the $80,000 ($79,230) was made as a settlement in a lawsuit, rather than voluntarily. I'm also not sure it belongs in the lead of that section per WP:UNDUE. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Added information on ICE changes affecting CCA Esruon (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed: Because CCA is a private company and is not required to do so, it and its contracting agencies refuse to respond to Freedom of Information requests for information that government-run prisons would be required to disclose, but courts have ruled in favor of some disclosure requests. Because source tied to this was unrelated, NYT articles referred to detainee deaths and not to disclosure information, and have not been able to locate source for this information. If proper sourcing is found will repost information. Esruon (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content

[edit]

Made some changes to content to remove some of the advertisements. Also changed some headings to better reflect the content under the headings. Made section on Hutto center smaller, as there is an entire article on this topic already on Wiki. Added some outside research sources. Esruon (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esruon (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added information on Inmate Rehabilitation programs, recognition and reform sections Esruon (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Company Overview

[edit]

Changed section to Company History, removed uncited content on Houston Detention Center, added some information about other facilities manged by CCA - includes references Esruon (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advert/edits

[edit]

After adding sources and editing advertising related fields, removed advert and sources needed flagging. Esruon (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Could not find source for final sentence under Private/Public prisons, so I removed sentence. Esruon (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag.

[edit]

As many people on this page have stated, this article is extremely slanted towards the company with only a very minor section about controversies. The article makes the company seem as if it is the only answer to the problems facing the US prison system, instead of just being a factual account of the history of the company and its current status. It also fails to mention many negative aspects about prisons run by the company such as riots, overcrowding, and lawsuits. The Flying IP (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI; just reorganized the page for clarity, and it reveals an imbalance in the Public/Private section that is pretty glaring. Advantage section is repetitive (only cost discussed), Problems section sparse, and definitely needs expansion, topic-wise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laws sought for contractual guarantee that prisons be filled to no less than 95% capacity

[edit]

Hi, all. This article isn't of overwhelming interest to me, to be frank, but I thought that "regulars" here might like to be made aware of something touched on in a four-participant, fifty-minute discussion and interview I heard today via NPR. The program was the 19 April 2012 broadcast of To the Point. It was about the activities of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an ideologically conservative group whose members are (1) lobbyists acting on behalf of large corporations and, (2) conservative state legislators, almost all of them Republican. It's a private organization, funded largely by the Koch family, and it has legislators and lobbyists drafting model legislation together and voting on it as equals, behind closed doors.

Once they "pass" some model legislation in this way, the legislators go home from the fancy hotels and resorts where these meetings are held and push forward the model legislation the group drafted and approved, without telling anyone of its origin. This is how we quietly ended up with so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws that are nearly identical in 24 states. The process, and the organization itself, didn't really get much notice from the media until recently: Evidently no one really knew that so many U.S. states had so many essentially identically-worded state laws backing conservative ideology until Trayvon Martin was shot in Florida and that state's "Stand Your Ground" law was cited in the shooter's defence.

So, on this radio program, mention was briefly made of CCA as a participant in this ALEC group. Guests on the radio show spoke of model legislation promoted by CCA and ALEC to encourage the privatisation of prisons and if I understood it correctly, to require that contracts between state governements and CCA must guarantee that CCA prisons would be filled to at least 95% capacity. Please see the relevant section (link/permalink) on the talk page for the ALEC article for further details and sourcing. The program is well worth listening to, fascinating stuff imo, even if you don't incorporate any of its material into the "lobbying activities" section of this CCA article. It's available via streaming, a podcast, or a downloadable mp3, all at no charge. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public v. Private Argument

[edit]

Very little lipservice is paid to the arguments against privatization while biased sources (all slanted toward privatization) are cited to support privatization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.36.234 (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch for possible COI socks

[edit]

Hi, all. I've spent some time reviewing this article's history, and have concluded that this article may be the target of paid or COI editors. I make no accusations about the following accounts, particularly, but I did notice that in its first edit to the encyclopaedia, new user account Jdiffenderfer (talk · contribs) removed two refs to the New York Times that echo the previous actions of Esruon (talk · contribs), an editor whose contributions overlap to a surprising degree with those of EmmaMae (talk · contribs), on this article and others. User Esruon previously deleted the New York Times content as well, over the objections of other editors; see the Removed Detainees Death section of this talk page.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highly inappropriate behavior by Ohiostandard - accusations need to be made or not

[edit]

This is utterly inappropriate. There is a forum for airing LEGITIMATE or substantive allegations of wrongdoing, and this is not it. You are essentially saying two things. First, you came to this page, not to make constructive edits, but to WP:COATRACK, and instead of spending the time editing, you searched the Users, not the content, to look for conspiracies. Second, you are making accusations WP:NPA that you admit have no basis. Either make them in the appropriate place, on the COI pages, which requires you to inform the parties and be held accountable for your accusations, or don't make them in the first place. Making an accusation where they may not be seen, then trying to avoid responsibility by saying (which makes no sense) that your accusation is not an accusation (when it clearly is) is cowardly and dishonest. Make them or take them down. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by IP 209.6.69.227

[edit]

This anon user and I have been in conflict over the American Legislative Exchange Council article. He's just shown up here, today, presumably for the first time, at an article I've been editing. His edits have skewed it away from the sources, which he appears not to have read based on the edits he made. He's deleted long-standing content that's been discussed previously on this talk page, and has rearranged sections in a way that, in my opinion, tends also to make this article more like an advert for CCA than it already was. I've reverted these changes. --OhioStandard (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To improve organization, tighten sentence structure, remove WP:SYNTH preambles to factual controversies

[edit]

The vast majority of what I see from Ohiostandard is voluminous essays, very recent, on the Talk page canvassing for people to go to the ALEC page, and to make this article page a WP:COATRACK for attacks on ALEC. Fixed sentences that rambled (as editors are supposed to), removed a couple of verbose WP:SYNTH preambles to perfectly OK factual sourced (but then brief and to the point) statements, an most importantly, moved controversies from random and inappropriate placements, (with the exception of the Private-Public section, which is more of a concept, and works well as a Pro/Anti paragraph on its own) to the Controversy section. No big removals.

Now for the part I am sure is the primary problem for OS. No problem in pointing out that CCA lobbies, or that there can be controversies surrounding that (though to call it a problem, you really have to show a problematic area, and where CCA lobbying may have resulted in a law that does something not in the public interest - if you really want to call this controversy, find an issue) Article though, ends up having a WP:COATRACK in stating that ALEC is a lobbying organization. ALEC is not, statements to the contrary, though they have been made, are obvious POV. No problem saying CCA belongs and has belonged to ALEC, it is true, and this was added in a NPOV way. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by USER:Collect

[edit]

USER BlueSalix posted CNN story about a riot at the CCA Adams County, Mississippi, prison that contained information about the death of one guard and hospital treatment of 15 others, in a new section === incidents ===

USER:Collect removed the section. Collect commented: (→Incidents: article does not say in any way that the riot was associated with the company running the prison)

I restored the section.

USER:Collect undid my restoration

I discussed the matter on the USER:Collect's Talk page. Collect defended his or her reverts.

I discussed the matter further, on Collect's Talk page, which that user visited.

Editor BlueSalix restored his or her original section and post, regarding the riot and death.

USER:Collect once again undid the posting and removed the section, then reverted the undo by still a third USER:Curb Chain noting:(Undid revision 493770189 by BlueSalix (talk)rv SPS as reasoning was iterated clearly - there is criticism in the article, and this trivia is not even criticism)

These are my comments posted at USER:Collect's Talk page

The prison riot yesterday didn't say anything about CCA? That's a bit like contending the sinking of the Titanic didn't have anything to do with the White Star Line or an iceberg or the Atlantic Ocean. Activist (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The only connection was running the place - which is rather insufficient for any implication about a corporation which was not in any way implicated otherwise in the "riot." The White Star management, on the other hand, was implicated in the poor decisions about the Titanic - so thanks for showing where you are coming from. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
There was no implication about CCA made in the edit. It was simply a statement of facts regarding a workplace fatality at a company-owned property, no different than the operator of a coal mine would be treated on Wikipedia if some of its workers were killed in a mine accident (see: Massey_Energy). Wikipedia entries for other prison operators (see: California Department of Corrections) also mention staff killed by inmates as well as internal disturbances (see: California_State_Prison,_Sacramento). BlueSalix (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CCA has had riots in its institutions on a regular basis. There have been reports regarding them made by contracting and hosting states and monitors. These included, for instance, reports on riots in May and July and September of 2004 in Watonga, Oklahoma, Crowley County, Colorado and Beattyville, Kentucky, that excoriated the corporation and mentioned similar specific shortcomings that existed in all three prisons. There was another riot in Tallahatchie, Mississippi the day after the 2004 Crowley riot but I don't know if the sending state, Colorado, webposted a report. The Crowley report was almost 200 pages. The extensive Watonga report was posted by the sending state, Arizona. Hawai'i has written numerous reports about riots and other incidents in CCA's Arizona prisons. I'm posting this to the Noticeboard. I'm not able to notify user BlueSalix as he or she doesn't have a User page. If you would like to add material on the riots I've cited, they and many others should be fairly easy to find on the Internet. Activist (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20120522/NEWS/205220320/Former-prison-worker-recalls-unsafe-situation Activist (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

USER:COLLECT suggested I refer the matter for CONSENSUS. Since this was not a difference of opinion between just two (now between USER:Collect and three other) editors, I followed WIKIPEDIA advice and referred the matter to the noticeboard as USER:Collect's three reverts would appear to be an edit war. Please correct me if I'm in error with specifics. Thank you. Activist (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the original editor whose edits were undone, I agree this is a case of edit warring by Collect. --BlueSalix (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BlueSalix and Activist are correct in their assessment. And of course the information stays in: There was no legitimate basis whatever for its removal in the first place. --OhioStandard (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions this edit raises, however: (1) Should any incidences be cataloged on the CCA page? (Other, public sector corrections operators do *not* have a similar section, even though they also suffer riots and disturbances - riots are cataloged on individual institutional entries.) (2) If we accept #1 as "yes", should there be a standard on which to include? (All prisons have riots and disturbances, is there a standard of notability [e.g. fatality] that should be enforced?) BlueSalix (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a prison riot itself belongs in the CCA article, unless a reliable source states they occur more frequently at CCA prisons compared to public prisons and that there is a connection specifically to CCA (not just private prisons in general). Workplace deaths could possibly be notable if determined to be uncommon in this industry, but probably just a couple of sentences. Lawsuits involving CCA as a result of the riots may be notable, but that depends on coverage. That's my opinion. 72Dino (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily argue that an incident should NOT be in the article, but that the argument hasn't been made, yet, that THIS incident is significant. WP is NOTTHENEWS, not everything should be in. Prisons are violent places, putting up a section labeled Incidents implicitly states that THESE incidents are significant, not just that they happened. If it or they say something about CCA, more than pointing out that yes, it is a prison, OK; otherwise, not sufficiently notable for inclusion. The only CCA employee death probably makes that hurdle, fights between gangs in general, no.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'll remove my edits except for the death incident, and am open to suggestions of where that should be moved. BlueSalix (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would not necessarily advocate moving it. Isn't exactly a controversy, not general enough to be part of the Company profile. Hard to categorize otherwise.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge "Public vs. Private Partnership"

[edit]

The section "Private vs. Public Partnership" appears to be a more general argument for/against private prisons and would be more appropriate in Private prison than in Corrections Corporation of America specifically. I request consensus to delete this entire section, which is adequately duplicated at the former entry. BlueSalix (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Much of the section is of doubtful provenance, anyway, introduced in this recent rewrite by IP 209.x who joined me here from our article on the American Legislative Exchange Council. For example, he added a lengthy paragraph about the "advantages" of private prisons from a "study" done by "the MTC Institute, a 'research unit' of Management & Training Corporation". He somehow neglected to mention that Management and Training Corporation manages private prisons and provides staff for them as its primary business. I'd suggest that other changes he introduced in that rewrite should also be scrutinised. --OhioStandard (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Much of the page is corporate self-promotion, references to non-peer reviewed "studies" that have been financed by the industry through political think tanks, etc. It needs a lot of cleaning up, as does the Private prison page. Activist (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Section removed in this edit. --OhioStandard (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understand your point, that these are all GENERAL questions of Private Prisons, not sure I agree it does not belong in the article. EXACTLY same thing applies to "Occupancy" section; not really specific to CCA, just a general phenomenon of Private Prisons. Removing also as per consensus. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help expanding Controvery section without going into WP:OR

[edit]

Read the section on Treatment of inmates, which is very poorly written, was particularly struck by the fact that it never really says WHAT the problems are, just lists adjectives. Dug a little deeper, seems to be two different problems. There is the general issue of how prison inmates are cared for, which would need a global view, not anecdotal. The ICE detention program, though seems to have a systemic problem with health care. ICE does a quick med evaluation, CCA does a quick one as well, but since both treat ICE detention as a short-term stay, nothing exhaustive. If you read up on the cases cited in the news articles, all involve ICE detainees that had terminal illnesses when rounded up, and the CCA response is to petition to let them go when found, which in a way makes sense. Sounds like there is some disagreement between ICE and CCA as to how to handle these, and who is responsible. Problem is, the new articles also are not very good about identifying the problem, and also devolve into invective more than analysis. If you go to primary sources, you get a better idea of what is going on, but posting on WP would yield OR objections. Clearly ICE is not reporting deaths from pre-existing terminal conditions, and neither is CCA. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why is this improtant to Wikipedia readers? Is it of encyclopedic value that people who are actively dying do not get the warders blamed for their deaths? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree that there is a problem with WP:UNDUE in the Controversy section, just evaluating and doing research about WHAT the problems alleged are. Certainly that when a terminally ill illegal is rounded up, ICE and the non-public Prison company have an internal conflict as to what to do, ICE wanting to do nothing, CCA wanting immediate "compassionate" release, and the public interest being accelerated deportation. 2/3 of the section is on this kind of problem; may be a clear case like "Occupancy", which needs to go to the more general Private prison article, or may reflect poor contract negotiation problems.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

edits

[edit]

The claims about ALEC seeking a 95% occupancy rate for CCA appear problematic. Can someone give a transcript showing this is made as a factual claim by NPR or is it an opinion which must be ascribed to the person making the claim? Also I found the existing language of

"Traded on the New York Stock Exchange, investors in CCA stock have an interest in keeping private prisons filled. Industry experts say a profitable prison must have a 90-95 percent capacity rate"

to be ludicrous and worrthy of a "d'oh" at best. The "occupancy rate" claim must be sourced - and is not. And I find very few folks want to invest in something with the intent of losing money <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it is POV setting up of a fact to make WP:OR . Two questions are here; first, should this, like the sections that GENERALLY talk about Private prisons (need a better name) be deleted and moved to Private prison, a defensible editorial position, or, if this is specifically relevant to CCA (probably not), how have they handled declines in prison population in a different way than other for-profit prison companies? Contrast with State-run prisons is obvious; they keep them overcrowded if politically feasible, and keep prisons and staff on the payroll even if empty, whereas for-profit prisons tend to close underutilized facilities in favor of more efficient ones. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has long had the erroneous information that CCA "opened the first medium security privately owned prison." In fact, Winn prison, in Winnfield, LA, is owned by the state but has been managed as an experiment by CCA from the start, as has the Allen prison by GEO Group the same year. Governor Bobby Jindal has tried to sell these prisons and two others for the past two years but the legislature has resisted the sales. http://www.cca.com/facility/winn-correctional-center/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talk • contribs) 20:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Training?

[edit]
I notice that the training provided to CCA personnel is not covered at all. There's likely a good reason, one that CCA and its predecessor USCC would like to keep covered up tightly.
.
As a former CCA correctional officer (floor training officer, at that), I can address that.
.
CCA's training program was pretty much the same as that given by Brantley Security. It was one week long, covering all of the shift reports and gave some detail into scams run by inmates, and also covered first aid and CPR. That was it.
.
There was no defensive tactics instruction at all, and certainly no weapon tactics. You barely learned how to operate your radio before you went out on the floor.
.
That's straight truth, people. You went out into the floor with your radio, clipboard and ink-pen, maybe a flashlight, and your keys. That was all I carried going into an open-bay berthing (meaning no bars) dorm with 108 inmates. Just me and 108 criminals, with nothing but air separating us.
.
Rest assured, the inmates were very quick to test new COs. I went onto a floor I'd never been toured for, with no FTO, my first day out of the training class. Within 15 minutes on the floor, some little punk bear-hugged me from behind. Had I not been quicker to grab his balls than he was to snatch me off the floor, he would have slammed me down like we were in the streets.
.
So, think about that as you consider all of the issues that have been raised in this article and the related discussions here. Every single issue raised here, to include the deaths of those illegal aliens, is directly linked to the training this company FAILED to provide.
.
Had I not been previously trained in military corrections, and not been an EMT, I'd have seen a couple of deaths at my own facility. I recall one night in 1998, having seen an inmate fall head-first from his top bunk to the floor, I called for back-up and medical evac. Since this inmate had recently come back from the hospital, he'd been complaining of stomach pains, so my sergeant's response on the radio was "that inmate's faking; tell him to get up and go back to bed." Had I not been so clear in communicating that his pulse, pin-point eyes, profuse sweating and the LARGE LUMP on his head could not be faked, he'd likely not have gone to the hospital as soon as he did... where they found that his surgery from 2 days before had displaced his intestines, preventing anything from going through.
.
So, all of these issues are related to the training.
Plus, if other CCA facilities are like mine was, they did not keep actual medical personnel on the grounds except during the day, and that was just a CMT (Certified Medication Technician, basically a CNA that can pass pills) for passing meds and basic treatments. The nurse was "on-call," with only two regularly scheduled visits each week to do "sick call" and follow-ups to real medical care.
.
There's a certain mindset that this company had. They were about getting as much money as they could, while doing the bare minimum and paying the least they could. Back in the 90s, you started with them, you were making $7.50 to put your life in jeopardy within their walls. So, for that pay and that training, they ended up with lots of COs that took bribes, traded favors, and straight up looked the other way on illegal activity their in the prison. I caught female COs having consensual sex with inmates several times, and observed other COs sneak cigarettes and other contraband onto the floors.
.
Needless to say, it didn't take me long to move on to greener pastures. It was safer working patrol.
.
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.48.6.140 (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prisontown USA in Southwest Ranches, FL

[edit]

In June of 2011[1], Citizens in and around Southwest Ranches, FL became aware of a new deal where CCA was looking to build the nations largest detention center in the United States located in a densely populated area and actually non-contiguous to the Town it was going to be approved by. Surrounded by such a dense population and also home to a nearby school population of approx. 23,000 school children, he closest of which being half a mile away. A public safety concern for all surrounding the parcel due prison riots, escapes and and increase of traffic. There was a large amount of opposition against the project which included people from the Town of Southwest Ranches, Pembroke Pines and the surrounding Broward/Miami-Dade Counties. A portion of the controversy stemmed from the Town of Southwest Ranches putting a guarantee of water for the CCA facility into a Fire/EMS agreement with it's neighbor Pembroke Pines. An agreement that was cancelled[2] in February 2012 by the Pembroke Pines Commission. Residents created a grassroots political action committee to fight the prison (RAID PAC) and posted all the public records related to the deal on their blog NOPRISONSWR.ORG to expose the "Pay to Play" [3] relationship between the private prison operator and Representatives Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Senator Bill Nelson. Both of which received campaign donations shortly after submitting a letter of recommendation for their project with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In June 2012, ICE reevaluated it's decision to choose Southwest Ranches, FL[4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenforbettergovt (talk • contribs) 23:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/06/ice_picks_southwest_ranches_fo.php
  2. ^ http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2012/03/pembroke_pines_cancels_southwest_ranches_contract.php
  3. ^ "Pay to Play"
  4. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/22/immigrant-detention-private-prisons-florida_n_1619673.html

CCA found in contempt of court = WP:UNDUE?

[edit]

[1] User:Collect claims that it violates WP:UNDUE for this article to mention that the CCA has been found in contempt of court by a federal judge? Edit summary was: Wikipedia is not a newspaper -- and this level of scrutiny in an article verges on undue weight - plenty of negative tidbits already here

If a corporation does many things which are found to be illegal by federal judges, then there may be many things which you may consider negative in the article. I would say that being found to be in contempt of a federal court is kind of a big deal and something that may be noted in this article without violating WP:UNDUE. — goethean 16:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agrees, it an extraordinary and newsworthy finding that, by its unusual nature, found its way in nes sources, and belongs in this article. We should discuss it, though, before reverting, and your course of action, taking it to the talk page or more input, is correct. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Goethean did, in fact, revert at 16:18 - 2 minutes after starting the discussion. The fact is that the finding was without criminal fine or penalty, and that the net effect is de minimis requiring only specific future actions. I find several hundred "court findings" in the news each day -- and frankly most end up being less important than ArbCom decisions <g>. Of course, if an editor scrupulously adds all such findings to articles, then there is something to be said for consistency. The net result of the finding was only that the IDOC had the ability to enforce contractual obligations on CCA per the source given. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So based on that somewhat obtuse and wandering response, I take it that your stance continues to be that instances of corporations being found in contempt of federal court should be suppressed from articles with a reference to the WP:UNDUE policy, presumably at your discretion. Is that accurate? — goethean 17:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, I find your stance bizarre and plainly incorrect. Being found in contempt of court is a big deal for a corporation and can be noted on the corporation's article. — goethean 17:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- if you were hauled into court and a judge did absolutely nothing except tell you that you were wrong with no penalty at all, how important would you find that decision? Collect (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would Goethean's being hauled into court and a judge be a story in the Chronicle? --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Kindly note the factual examples provided. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What factual examples? you appear to have moved onto whether or not Goethean would be a news article. Kindly stick to the discussion. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Um -- if you were hauled into court and a judge did absolutely nothing except tell you that you were wrong with no penalty at all, how important would you find that decision?
If I were found guilty of contempt of federal court, then yes, that fact would be important and would definitely go into an article on me. — goethean 20:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was not a one liner court fining, but a full AP Big Story picked up py the Washington Post, SF Chronicle and others. I think we should add "all such findngs" written up in depth on wires and picked up by multiple news sources. Do you know of specific ones we are missing from this article? --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
F'rinstance court rulings about companies in general? Most of which actually involve actual penalties? [2] is not covered in FilmOn, [3] is unmentioned in LSU, just looking at today. Add them to those articles, please. Collect (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit these articles. As you are interested in them, mention them here, and cite missing information, you are, of course, free to add the information, and I encourage you to do so wherever you find that information from the news is missing in articles in your area of interest. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

And let us use the Chronicle article as the source. Also, if there are missing findings for other cases that have this much coverage, they might need to be added to this article. I suggest we spend time looking. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The claim was made that it is normal WP practice to include such major articles. It isn't. The examples given have comparable news coverage to the CCA article, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should feel free to add them to the article. I can't say that any differently. If you are complaining that similar information is missing from other articles, please, simply add it to the other articles that you edit. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)) (foolish, little minded editor)[reply]

I would say that being found to be in contempt of a federal court is kind of a big deal and something that may be noted in this article without violating WP:UNDUE was stated above. I noted several major cases where, apparently, editors at other articles which I do not edit clearly demurred. The net result of the case at hand was that no penalties were assessed of any kind, and the IDOC was told they could seek in state court to enforce contractual obligations. Cheers. BTW, making a personal attack and "striking it out", but leaving it on the page, is not exactly in the spirit of WP:AGF is it? Collect (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"CCA falsified staffing logs to make it appear that ICC was fully staffed, and CCA employees lied about the number of officers actually on duty. ...Guards were absent for thousands of hours when they were supposed to be present." https://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/federal-judge-holds-corrections-corporation-america-contempt-violating-idaho Arcanicus (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. You are welcome to edit the articles and add the information, as I keep repeating; there is nothing preventing you from doing so. That the information is not in those articles is not an argument about anything here, and I am not seeing why you keep raising that issue. Wikipedia is a volunteer project. That an article on one topic does or does not contain certain information, absent diffs that show the reasons why, connected to a community discussion, does not contribute to resolving any Wikipedia article content issue. If this is your only argument, as it appears to be, then it is time to move on from this discussion. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Corrections Corporation of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Corrections Corporation of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CoreCivic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing to reduce repetition

[edit]

Just wanted to let you all know that I am trying to organize this to reduce repetition and some circularity. Content about particular facilities should appear all in one place, I think, rather than in different sections. It is unclear to me why certain facilities are listed relatively early in the article, without a header for this section. Incidents of violence or mistreatment are noted for each, and in some cases narrated again or at great length under Controversies. I suggest we need a different name for that section anyway: Violent events and federal investigations are not controversies, like a difference of opinion, they are events and facts.Parkwells (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Word salad

[edit]

poor treatment of inmates and disclosure of oversight

What is plagiarised from the The Baffler's Sunday cryptic crossword? And that's my final answer. — MaxEnt 17:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete puffery

[edit]

This is not supposed to be an essay about how Hutto and co. founded this prison company, but a factual accounting. Toned down material from company website about their opening days. I have worked on this material before. Let's keep to the facts, please. Parkwells (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CoreCivic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:CoreCivic&oldid=1222882867"