LA Sherrif Upset New Law Means Less Prisoners to Wash Cars and Change Oil

This past summer, Louisiana's legislature passed a comprehensive set of reforms, called the Louisiana Justice Reinvestment Package, aimed at saving the tax payers of LA tens of millions of dollars a year spent locking up their neighbors and redirect some of that money into programs designed to reduce rates of recidivism and for services for victims of crime.

The 10 bill package had bipartisan co-sponsors and bipartisan support and from what I can tell, the passage of the legislation was generally viewed as a good thing by people in Louisiana and those outside the state commenting on criminal justice reform.

From the Pew link above:

The reform package includes reductions in probation and prison terms for drug, property, and other nonviolent crimes; elimination of mandatory minimum prison terms; expansion of opportunities for release from prison, including for some of Louisiana’s longest-serving inmates; restrictions on criminal justice fines and fees, and debt forgiveness for those who make consistent payments; and improvements related to victim notification and input.

The goal is to reduce the Louisiana prisoner population by 10%. Sounds good right? I think so anyway. There's way too many people locked up for non-violent crimes, particularly drug possession and the like. Well the sheriff of at least one Louisiana county doesn't see it that way and his reasoning is so bizarrely contrary to the common good, the rights of citizens and the interest of liberty that I can't believe a person capable of saying something like this in press conference of all places could ever be elected sheriff. How bad could his opponent have possibly been?



Sheriff: Don’t release non-violent offenders early — they’re ‘the ones you can work’

“The ones you can work, the ones that can pick up trash, the work release programs — but guess what? Those are the ones that they’re releasing!” Prator said. “In addition to the bad ones… they’re releasing some good ones that we use every day to wash cars, to change the oil in our cars, to cook in the kitchen… well, they’re going to let them out!”

I'm reminded of the similar arguments put forth by California deputy AG from a few years ago which you can read about in a thread here.

Keeping people in jail simply as a cheap/free source of a labor is tantamount to slave labor. Period. Anyone who can justify it as a cost saving measure shouldn't be in any position of authority.

basically, he just advocated slavery! reminds me of the movie, "brubaker". redford's character wonders why this inmate hadn't been released even though he had got parole years ago.

a reply to: theantediluvian

We have far too many people imprisoned in the United States.

Especially for very minor crimes. It sounds like Louisiana has the right idea.

a reply to: theantediluvian

It's almost if he views them as slaves....

But good on Louisiana trying to do a good thing.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Pretty crude, also counterintuitive it's costs an average of $20,000 - $40,000 to house an inmate each year. With wages what they are in these service industy's it would probably be cheaper to take them somewhere, depending on the number of vehicles they could possibly even a group discount.

Have any of you actually read the 13th Amendment?

Not just listened to people who say it was to end slavery...


Here’s a civics lesson...

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Constitutional my ass!

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Have any of you actually read the 13th Amendment?

Not just listened to people who say it was to end slavery...


Here’s a civics lesson...

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Constitutional my ass!

I need to agree there, Penal Servitude is the law, if that is what is allocated as a punishment. I don't think though, that should be a reason for retention of the 'good' prisoner per se...since the Sheriff put it that way, it's like saying, your here to stay until we are finished with you, which should not be his business.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

It allows for it but by no means prescribes it as law. Since the legislators of the state of Louisiana have voted to reduce the prison population that sheriff will just have to get over it and deal with less slave workers to exploit.

Only one thing comes to mind.

Yea , f+ck that guy.

When benefits of having prisoners outweigh the weight of their crime (imho is 90% of the time) than we are living in upside down land.


a reply to: theantediluvian

a reply to: theantediluvian

Aw poor sherrif is going to lose his slave labor, all he has done is come out and say what many of us already know.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Wow what a scumbag and perfect example of abuse by the system..

Most of us here on ats knew the prison and laws are a business but its surprising to see that idiot confirm it

a reply to: Phage

Beat me to it.

"What we've got here..."

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Sheriff: Don’t release non-violent offenders early — they’re ‘the ones you can work’

“The ones you can work, the ones that can pick up trash, the work release programs — but guess what? Those are the ones that they’re releasing!” Prator said. “In addition to the bad ones… they’re releasing some good ones that we use every day to wash cars, to change the oil in our cars, to cook in the kitchen… well, they’re going to let them out!”

One of the deputies is looking kinda nervous. Like he's already figuring: he's gonna have to wash and shine the sheriff's car.

I don't mean to make hte connection, but this REMOTELY--not convincingly--reminds me of using undocumented immigrants for cheap labor. There're not enough workers to fill these jobs cheaply, so they KNOWINGLY turn a blind eye to undocumented workers. What unforseen consequences might ensue? Oh--ya' know--like maybe pressuring the employees because you suspect they're not legal? Pushing them harder than they should be pushed because you know you can get away with it? This isn't humane.

I voted for Gary, for open borders, so I don't hate undocumented. They should be given a legal path to citizenship. Trump's plans to mass deport were/are ridiculous and inhumane. BUT--and I say this carefully--does this have to be more obvious for us to do something? Doing nothing means empowering those who're exploiting these circumstances for personal gain.

Again, the Canadian government is trying to keep land or manipulate land rights against the indigenous peoples for the purposes of economic gain. Rules--and even rights--are ignored for $$$$$.

How many times have we polluted a river to cut costs?? Or cut too many trees, so wrecking the health of the ecosystem?

This issue is bigger than racism. It's fundamentally about greed and how low we'll go to keep costs down and indulge ourselves.

originally posted by: Phage
Only one thing comes to mind.

I'll see that and raise you -

“In addition to the bad ones… they’re releasing some good ones that we use every day to wash cars, to change the oil in our cars, to cook in the kitchen… well, they’re going to let them out!”

That is one scary quote and one scary dude.

sheriff "Joe" must have consulted him on this issue.

a reply to: Blaine91555

“In addition to the bad ones… they’re releasing some good ones that we use every day to wash cars, to change the oil in our cars, to cook in the kitchen… well, they’re going to let them out!”

That is one scary quote and one scary dude.

That quotation actually sounds like how southerners would describe African American slaves: this one is a good, strong one, and smart, too; this one is hard to handle, and needs some leather periodically, but he's strong as a horse; etc.

Smh.

a reply to: Liquesence

"Southerns"?

Come on now, it's 2017.

This is about the words of one man. A man who clearly should not have authority.

edit on 10/12/2017 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)