This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 209.6.69.227 (talk) at 19:29, 11 May 2012 (→Highly inappropriate behavior by Ohiostandard - accusation need to be made or not). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:29, 11 May 2012 by 209.6.69.227 (talk) (→Highly inappropriate behavior by Ohiostandard - accusation need to be made or not)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Companies Unassessed | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 | Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct) | |||
| ||||
 | Tennessee Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph of headquarters of the Corrections Corporation of America at 10 Burton Hills Boulevard Nashville, Tennessee 37215 be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Nashville, Tennessee may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
Comments through June 2008
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
Tom Beasley link
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)
impartiality?
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).
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)
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)
- It's complete BS. You get the impression after reading this
press releasearticle that CCA is a loving family-friendly rehabilitation cooperative, and that they treats prisoners as people, not commodities to profit off. --Jatkins 18:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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)
Re-write
I have reorganized the article without removing any information. I will add more info shortly.--Knulclunk (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Removed unsourced rant
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)
Removed unrelated quote
In order to remove opinions and bias from page, deleted quote from Bill Maher Anourse (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Found quote to offer neutrality Esruon (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Removed Detainees Death section
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Agreed. Added information on ICE changes affecting CCA Esruon (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
Content
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)
Added information on Inmate Rehabilitation programs, recognition and reform sections Esruon (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Edits to Company Overview
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)
Advert/edits
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)
NPOV tag.
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)
- 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)
Laws sought for contractual guarantee that prisons be filled to no less than 95% capacity
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)
Public v. Private Argument
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)
Please watch for possible COI socks
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)
Highly inappropriate behavior by Ohiostandard - accusations need to be made or not
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)
Recent edits by IP 209.6.69.227
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)
To improve organization, tighten sentence structure, remove WP:SYNTH preambles to factual controversies
The vast majority of what I see from Ohiostandard is voluminous essays 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)
Categories: