|
Post by corywensle on Dec 3, 2015 22:49:32 GMT -5
It seems like TDC could save a lot of money if it just built new prisons in or near large cities. This would eliminate overtime to nearly nothing. If TDC paid out 8 mill in OT during one month, it seems like shutting down the rural farms and rebuilding near big cities would solve the problem.
Am I off base here? Is there something I'm not taking into consideration?
|
|
|
Post by accussedsnitchgp11 on Dec 4, 2015 22:54:10 GMT -5
Location does not effect work conditions on Units.... Location does not make up for Staffing cuts..
Being Nearer to Larger cities with more Gang Members means more of a Case of hiring Gang Members. TDCJ did not expand Until Ruiz v Estelle to combat Officer to Offender Ratio..
|
|
|
Post by mley1 on Dec 5, 2015 1:05:12 GMT -5
Location does not effect work conditions on Units.... Location does not make up for Staffing cuts.. Being Nearer to Larger cities with more Gang Members means more of a Case of hiring Gang Members. TDCJ did not expand Until Ruiz v Estelle to combat Officer to Offender Ratio.. Uh, no. The Ruiz stipulation did not create the prison expansion. The prison expansion happened because of hard on crime politicians. Politicians that promised to lock up offenders for longer periods of time, with zero tolerance laws, longer sentences, and laws that make parole harder, all created the prison expansion. The Ruiz stipulation did NOT. The location of prison units is also a political issue. Some towns want them, some don't. Building a prison near a small rural town can be an economic boom for that location. It increases construction for housing, increases the input into the economy in all areas, and can mean millions of dollars in economic growth for an area. So, there were many small rural towns/area's willing to give land to the state for building prisons during the prison expansion of the '90's. Many politicians tried to get prisons in their jurisdictions as they felt it would make them look good, and increase their chances of re election with their constituents. The prison industry is a very political one, and one that means LOTS of money for the area's they're built in. And, the Ruiz court case had NOTHING to do with that.
|
|
|
Post by mley1 on Dec 5, 2015 1:06:52 GMT -5
BTW, the Ruiz stipulation took effect in the late 70's and early 80's. The prison expansion occurred during the early to mid 90's. The two are NOT related.
|
|
|
Post by corywensle on Dec 5, 2015 11:58:29 GMT -5
Thanks. Makes sense now.
|
|
|
Post by accussedsnitchgp11 on Dec 5, 2015 17:33:55 GMT -5
Interesting reading about Ruiz vs Estelle txexecutions.org/lawsuits.asptexaspolitics.utexas.edu/archive/html/just/features/0505_01/ruiz.html""Specifically, Ruiz cited several problems with the state's prison system:Overcrowding – particularly the placement of two and even three inmates in cells designed for a single inmate Inadequate security – claimed to be the result of too few guards, sometimes resulting in the handing over of supervision of whole sections of prisons to inmates (known as "building tenders") who assisted guards"" "" The state's response to the Ruiz ruling evolved over time as officials first tried relatively easy (and low cost) solutions, which ultimately failed. In a state famous for its hostility to both public expenditures and prisoner rights, the first response was to reduce the existing state prison population, while severely limiting the number of new prisoners transferred from county and municipal jails. Reduction of the existing population was accomplished through early release for good behavior, either through parole (serving the remainder of one's sentence in the community under supervision) or probation (suspension of a sentence, but remaining under court supervision). Early release programs perhaps went too far, with convicted criminals serving only small fractions of their sentences. As a result, recidivism (the rate at which convicted criminals return to criminal activity) rose dramatically, causing the public and elected officials to demand that convicts serve a greater portion of their terms. In the meantime, the war on drugs launched during the Reagan administration was adopted on the state level in Texas, resulting in increases in the length of prison sentences and the reduction of opportunities for parole. Meanwhile, counties and municipalities, chafing under the additional financial pressure imposed by state practices, successfully sued the state for compensation of the tens of millions of dollars expended housing prisoners who would normally be transferred to state prison. The state's rapidly growing population meant that even if crime rates stayed the same, the Texas prison system would need much greater capacity. So, by the end of the 1980s the state embarked on a massive prison construction program. At the time of the Ruiz trial the state operated just eighteen prison facilities for approximately 25,000 inmates. In the late 1980s and early 1990s the state built an additional eighty-nine units of varying sizes and types to accommodate more than 140,000 prisoners. New units have continued to come on line over the past decade to accommodate a state prison population whose numbers have leveled off at approximately 142,000.""
|
|
|
Post by accussedsnitchgp11 on Dec 5, 2015 17:40:36 GMT -5
more interesting reading tarlton.law.utexas.edu/exhibits/ww_justice/documents_3/Ruiz_opinion_1_1980.pdfTDC's future plans encompass, for the most part, the construction of large maximum security institutions in rural areas, on lands extensive enough to maintain farming and ranching operations. Such a facility is the Beto Unit. TDC officials plan for it to house 4,000 inmates when completed, which will be several years from now.16 Legislative authorization has been given TDC to begin site studies and to purchase land for a new prison unit, to be located in southern or western Texas, and a location for large-scale agricultural activity is now being sought. It is conceded by TDC officials that it will be many years before this projected unit will be ready for inmate habitation. Temporary housing facilities are also under construction at some of the existing units; and the remodeling and use of facilities at Gatesville, Texas, which were formerly used by the Texas Youth Council, is also contemplated.
|
|
|
Post by accussedsnitchgp11 on Dec 5, 2015 18:13:55 GMT -5
Before the Ruiz v. Estelle court case, the Texas Department of Corrections had 18 units, including 16 for males and 2 for females.
|
|
|
Post by mley1 on Dec 7, 2015 0:13:48 GMT -5
As a result, recidivism (the rate at which convicted criminals return to criminal activity) rose dramatically, causing the public and elected officials to demand that convicts serve a greater portion of their terms. In the meantime, the war on drugs launched during the Reagan administration was adopted on the state level in Texas, resulting in increases in the length of prison sentences and the reduction of opportunities for parole. Meanwhile, counties and municipalities, chafing under the additional financial pressure imposed by state practices, successfully sued the state for compensation of the tens of millions of dollars expended housing prisoners who would normally be transferred to state prison. The state's rapidly growing population meant that even if crime rates stayed the same, the Texas prison system would need much greater capacity. So, by the end of the 1980s the state embarked on a massive prison construction program. At the time of the Ruiz trial the state operated just eighteen prison facilities for approximately 25,000 inmates. In the late 1980s and early 1990s the state built an additional eighty-nine units of varying sizes and types to accommodate more than 140,000 prisoners. New units have continued to come on line over the past decade to accommodate a state prison population whose numbers have leveled off at approximately 142,000."" The above paragraph illustrates what I explained perfectly. Thanks for finding that for me Snitch. The legislators changed laws to require inmates to do 50 and 80% of their sentences in some crime categories. The big expansion did NOT occur until this happened. TDCJ was NOT going to spend money on any expansion after the Ruiz decision. In fact, they did not. Your research illustrates that. The overcrowding problem was one of many issues. The building tenders, medical, discipline, were a few more. To say that the sole reason for the prison expansion of the 90's was the Ruiz stipulation is not accurate. Many of us who were there back then predicted that with the change in the laws we would see the population explode, and the inmate population become old, feeble, and need extensive health care, raising the TDCJ's health care cost dramatically. We are seeing that now. At my unit we have three pods filled with many elderly inmates with cancers, Alzheimers, dementia and many other ailments attributable to age.
|
|
|
Post by mley1 on Dec 7, 2015 0:17:26 GMT -5
Before the Ruiz v. Estelle court case, the Texas Department of Corrections had 18 units, including 16 for males and 2 for females. Correct. I came into TDCJ in '82. We had 27 facilities then, an expansion of 9 facilities from the time that the Ruiz case first started. In the early 80's it was felt that was enough, especially with the way inmates were being released. The BIG expansion that occurred in the 90's did NOT occur until AFTER sentencing laws had changed, and the tough on drugs laws came into play. BTW, your research illustrated that as well. Thanks for the help.
|
|
|
Post by mley1 on Dec 7, 2015 0:24:38 GMT -5
And, now, more than 30yrs after the Ruiz decision the state is leaning back the other direction again. The push is now for the release of inmates out of ad seg, legalizing marijuana, and releasing many offenders with only drug related crimes. In fact, prisons have already been closed in the past couple of years, Central Unit being one out of Region 3. The push is for more prison closures. The state legislature is feeling the pinch from medical costs and a huge TDCJ budget.
|
|
|
Post by mley1 on Dec 7, 2015 0:33:57 GMT -5
Another point I'd like to make, TDCJ(TDC back then), did NOT expand prisons to increase the officer to inmate ratio. They just hired more officers. That's how I got hired in 1982. The academy in HV was going full boar, and our academy was only 2 weeks. We had 98 in my academy. Half went to Ramsey, and half went to Darrington. January 1, 1983 we were told we couldn't use our building tenders any longer. Of course they lingered on for a little while. But, they didn't last long. And, several BT's were killed once they lost power and had to be housed in GP. Then, with the absence of the BT's maintaining control of the cell blocks, the gang wars of the mid 80's began. And, Ad seg was born due to the violence of the gangs. That's when I started in gang intelligence. I was at some of the first gang intelligence meetings at Darrington. Perilous times back then. There ain't many of us left working in TDCJ who were around back then.
|
|
|
Post by mley1 on Dec 7, 2015 0:45:25 GMT -5
more interesting reading tarlton.law.utexas.edu/exhibits/ww_justice/documents_3/Ruiz_opinion_1_1980.pdfTDC's future plans encompass, for the most part, the construction of large maximum security institutions in rural areas, on lands extensive enough to maintain farming and ranching operations. Such a facility is the Beto Unit. TDC officials plan for it to house 4,000 inmates when completed, which will be several years from now.16 Legislative authorization has been given TDC to begin site studies and to purchase land for a new prison unit, to be located in southern or western Texas, and a location for large-scale agricultural activity is now being sought. It is conceded by TDC officials that it will be many years before this projected unit will be ready for inmate habitation. Temporary housing facilities are also under construction at some of the existing units; and the remodeling and use of facilities at Gatesville, Texas, which were formerly used by the Texas Youth Council, is also contemplated. Notice the date of 1980. By 1982, when I hired on, most of this had already occurred and several new units had been built. This small expansion of what was at the time 9 units was thought back then to be sufficient. That lasted until the tough on crime crowd got a hold on things. And, again, the BIG expansion did not occur until the 90's after some laws had changed. The inmate population INCREASED by over 100,000 inmates between 1982 and 2000. Yes, that's right, OVER 100,000 inmates. And, I PROMISE you the Ruiz stipulation did NOT advise TDCJ to INCREASE the inmate population by 100,000!
|
|
|
Post by bobothebeaten on Dec 7, 2015 9:20:09 GMT -5
more interesting reading tarlton.law.utexas.edu/exhibits/ww_justice/documents_3/Ruiz_opinion_1_1980.pdfTDC's future plans encompass, for the most part, the construction of large maximum security institutions in rural areas, on lands extensive enough to maintain farming and ranching operations. Such a facility is the Beto Unit. TDC officials plan for it to house 4,000 inmates when completed, which will be several years from now.16 Legislative authorization has been given TDC to begin site studies and to purchase land for a new prison unit, to be located in southern or western Texas, and a location for large-scale agricultural activity is now being sought. It is conceded by TDC officials that it will be many years before this projected unit will be ready for inmate habitation. Temporary housing facilities are also under construction at some of the existing units; and the remodeling and use of facilities at Gatesville, Texas, which were formerly used by the Texas Youth Council, is also contemplated. Notice the date of 1980. By 1982, when I hired on, most of this had already occurred and several new units had been built. This small expansion of what was at the time 9 units was thought back then to be sufficient. That lasted until the tough on crime crowd got a hold on things. And, again, the BIG expansion did not occur until the 90's after some laws had changed. The inmate population INCREASED by over 100,000 inmates between 1982 and 2000. Yes, that's right, OVER 100,000 inmates. And, I PROMISE you the Ruiz stipulation did NOT advise TDCJ to INCREASE the inmate population by 100,000! If you build them they will come. When TDC began the prison expansion some legislators complained that they weren't getting units in their districts. Units brought jobs to communities who had nothing else (ex: Fort Stockton). It was also thought that if convicts were sent to a prison closer to their own communities that they would have a better chance of rehabilitation and they would pose less threats at their units. What TDC administrators and legislators didn't realize is that those communities couldn't provide enough able bodied employees to staff those units. They also failed to realize that in all likelihood that people hired at those units would be responsible to manage their own relatives. Units should have only been built in highly populated communities that could have supported staffing. Who cares if a convict's babies mama would have to drive 500 miles for a visit? That's part of "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".
|
|
|
Post by accussedsnitchgp11 on Dec 7, 2015 13:39:00 GMT -5
Never said Ruiz encouraged the Offender population increase.
|
|