18 ms·

This is a good start but we must end the use of State private prisons as well. Do you even know who your state representatives are?? Call your state reps: http

This is a good start but we must end the use of State private prisons as well. Do you even know who your state representatives are?? Call your state reps: http://tryvoices.com/ http://tryvoices.com/ ACLU: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/end-prisons-profit https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/end-prisons-profit

Yhippa 10y ago
Case in point: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/23/pennsylvania.corrupt.judges/ http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/23/pennsylvania.corrupt.jud...
- themartorana 10y ago
  Well, that's just corruption of the worst kind, but private prisons or no, I'm betting this judge would have found an alternative stream of dirty money if private prisons didn't exist. I mean, look I agree with you that they need to be closed, but there are likely better examples of them just being worse on merit, without having to dive into bribery and whatnot.
- pc86 10y ago
  This article is from 2009, and the judge is currently serving a nearly 3-decade sentence for his numerous crimes.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    The article says the judges took a plea deal for only 87 months of prison time.
    - wlesieutre 10y ago
      Other sources agree with the 28 year sentence. Here's one from 2013 regarding an appeal being denied, and as far as I can find it didn't go any higher. http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/court-denies-civarella-appeal-1.1525776 http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/court-denies-civarella-appe... EDIT - You can verify this online at https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ and search for 15008-067
      - pc86 10y ago
        Apparently at least one of them continued saying they were innocent after the plea deal (in which they admitted guilt), so a court threw out the plea and retried them in 2011, resulting in 17 and 28 year sentences instead of the plea of 7.25.
        jessaustin 10y ago
        Hahaha thanks co-defendant! When you lie down with dogs...
        s_q_b 10y ago
        This was the one flaw in the otherwise excellent FBI and Pennsylvania Attorney General investigations. They never should have allowed the number of jointly tried cases that they did. They used joint prosecution as a tactic, combining lesser hard-to-prove charges against one defendant with severe charges against another in the same trial, relying upon the strength of the evidence against one defendant to damn them both. Regardless, their investigation was very beneficial in the long run. Low-level corruption used to be endemic in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area, until the Federal government came to town. Following the "Kids for Cash" case, the area became the subject of a wide-ranging inquiry into official abuse of office. By the time the dust settled, close to two dozen officials were criminally charged, including a state senator, a very wealthy commercial real estate developer, and two county commissioners.
        jessaustin 10y ago
        Normally I'd be unhappy about this sort of prosecutorial overreach, but in this case I guess the lesson would be not to overlook the corruption of fellow judges. High school students are held to that standard; I think we can hold judges to it. Even if the co-defendant didn't profit as enthusiastically from the false imprisonment of children, he had to have known it was happening.
        s_q_b 10y ago
    - pc86 10y ago
      Another problem with using decade-old sources :) The article above is from 2/29/09. A 2014 article[0] shows their guilty pleas were later rejected due to their behavior, and both given larger sentences. > Both originally agreed to spend seven years in prison, but then Ciavarella talked exclusively with Newswatch 16. > "I loved the juvenile court, I loved helping those kids. I would never do anything to hurt a child, that's just not what I do. That's not me. I was always there for those kids. I resent the fact that people think I did something improper. I didn't do anything improper when it came to the care of those kids," said Ciavarella in July of 2009. > Days after that interview, a federal judge rejected the guilty pleas of Ciavarella and Conahan, saying their behavior didn't really accept guilt. [0] http://wnep.com/2014/01/26/five-years-since-ciavarella-and-conahan-were-charged/ http://wnep.com/2014/01/26/five-years-since-ciavarella-and-c...
      - jsprogrammer 10y ago
        The article you link to says it may be outdated :) Do you know of their current status?
        citruspi 10y ago
        According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons' inmate locator[0]: Mark Ciavarella (#15008-067): Ashland FCI until 30 December 2035 Michael Conahan (#15009-067): Coleman Low FCI until 18 December 2026 [0] https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/
- s_q_b 10y ago
  This occurred a few miles away from where I grew up. My mother's former law partner is the President Judge of the county, and another partner at her firm was appointed to fill one of the vacancies left open on the county bench. Both were uninvolved, assisted with the Federal investigation, and had no knowledge of the scheme. They were cleared of all wrongdoing and continued in their judicial role. It's still unbelievable to me. These judges and contractors were well-respected members of the community. Yet they committed perhaps one of the most heinous breaches of trust possible in a justice system: selling children into prison for personal profit. I met these men. They did not start out "evil." However, in a relatively isolated Rust Belt region, the judges are some of the most powerful political figures in the county. The conspirators messages show the slow progression from neutrality into almost gleeful corruption, as they became intoxicated with the power of the bench.
Unbeliever69 10y ago
Agree 100%. A small step in the right direction. Our criminal justice system needs serious overhauls on SO many levels. Unfortunately, it is not only the fault of law enforcement, politicians, and judges. They are simply representing the will of the people. The heart of American citizens need to change. We live in such an unforgiving society. Despite what anyone says, America and Americans don't believe in 2nd chances. Anyone that survives our legal system and incarceration will NEVER have a true 2nd chance because we as Americans cannot and will not collectively forgive. I blame the media to be honest for perpetuating fear in the hearts of the masses. We live in a sad country filled with sad, fearful, unforgiving people. Maybe a blanket statement, but one that I believe to be true.
- bradleyankrom 10y ago
  I don't think it's necessarily the will of the people that they are representing, unless you mean 'people' in the Citizens United sense.
- helthanatos 10y ago
  We need 40 lashes instead of 2 years in prison. We need a harsher system that accurately punishes crime.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    While I agree with the downvoting of this comment for the primitive perspective, I do also agree with the sentiment. Prison time does very little to change people and makes them more likely to re-offend. What matters is repaying the "debt" to society. Hard to do when a year in prison can cost more to the taxpayer than a year at Harvard.
    - ryanlol 10y ago
      >Prison time does very little to change people Probably most out-of-touch statement of the year.
      - 10y ago
downandout 10y ago
Another good step would be to legally bar organizations that directly benefit from jails/prisons from lobbying for any law that is likely to result in more prisoners or higher sentences. These would include correctional officer/law enforcement unions, bail bond companies, criminal defense attorneys, and any company that derives most of its revenue from selling goods or services to jails/prisons, inmates, or criminal defendants.
- Anon1096 10y ago
  So basically you want to outlaw lobbying for representation? That's the outcome of your proposals. A union is no different than an individual, except that many people are included in the group. Outlawing lobbying by unions means that I, if I were theoretically a prison guard, can't lobby (ask for representation) from my local lawmakers on issues that I think matter. Is that the world you want to live in? What if this were applied to a group you support, like restricting the EFF's ability to lobby because they have a conflict of interest. I really think that many people advocating any type of lobbying restriction needs to stop and think about the consequences of what they are working towards before proceeding.
  - downandout 10y ago
    No, I don't want to "basically outlaw lobbying for representation". I said nothing of the sort. I said that organizations that directly profit from criminal laws shouldn't be able to lobby for them. Criminal laws do tremendous damage to the lives of the people they affect, and as such need to be deliberated without the influence of people that will financially benefit from them. And yes, a world where criminal laws are not able to be influenced by people that will profit from them is definitely one I want to live in.
    - alistairSH 10y ago
      Should we, as software developers and IT professionals, be able to lobby about information security? Net neutrality? If we can't, and Verizon/Cox also can't (they also have a conflict), who is left? People who either don't care or lack enough knowledge of the issue to make reasonable policy recommendations?
Shivetya 10y ago
I always found it amazing that people would bitch up a storm about private prisons when their numbers are so low and how much state, city, and even county prisons, were built just to profit off of incarceration namely through importing prisoners. that and the they (politicians, police, etc) should be in prison themselves for their head nodding reaction to prison violence to include rape. just nodding your head and shrugging should never had been acceptable
finid 10y ago
Right thing to do, but at the state level, that will be a tough fight. Knowing the group of people that are most likely to be imprisoned, tough chance.
godzillabrennus 10y ago
If anyone is interested in organizing a campaign for their state representatives in California please feel free to hit me up for a free beta of our new grassroots advocacy platform. The website http://www.fastadvocate.com http://www.fastadvocate.com talks a bit more about our capabilities. hn (at) fastadvcoate (dot) com - you can email me here if you want to chat more.

Yhippa 10y ago

Case in point: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/23/pennsylvania.corrupt.judges/ http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/23/pennsylvania.corrupt.jud...

themartorana 10y ago
Well, that's just corruption of the worst kind, but private prisons or no, I'm betting this judge would have found an alternative stream of dirty money if private prisons didn't exist. I mean, look I agree with you that they need to be closed, but there are likely better examples of them just being worse on merit, without having to dive into bribery and whatnot.
pc86 10y ago
This article is from 2009, and the judge is currently serving a nearly 3-decade sentence for his numerous crimes.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  The article says the judges took a plea deal for only 87 months of prison time.
  - wlesieutre 10y ago
    Other sources agree with the 28 year sentence. Here's one from 2013 regarding an appeal being denied, and as far as I can find it didn't go any higher. http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/court-denies-civarella-appeal-1.1525776 http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/court-denies-civarella-appe... EDIT - You can verify this online at https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ and search for 15008-067
    - pc86 10y ago
      Apparently at least one of them continued saying they were innocent after the plea deal (in which they admitted guilt), so a court threw out the plea and retried them in 2011, resulting in 17 and 28 year sentences instead of the plea of 7.25.
      - jessaustin 10y ago
        Hahaha thanks co-defendant! When you lie down with dogs...
        s_q_b 10y ago
        This was the one flaw in the otherwise excellent FBI and Pennsylvania Attorney General investigations. They never should have allowed the number of jointly tried cases that they did. They used joint prosecution as a tactic, combining lesser hard-to-prove charges against one defendant with severe charges against another in the same trial, relying upon the strength of the evidence against one defendant to damn them both. Regardless, their investigation was very beneficial in the long run. Low-level corruption used to be endemic in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area, until the Federal government came to town. Following the "Kids for Cash" case, the area became the subject of a wide-ranging inquiry into official abuse of office. By the time the dust settled, close to two dozen officials were criminally charged, including a state senator, a very wealthy commercial real estate developer, and two county commissioners.
        jessaustin 10y ago
        Normally I'd be unhappy about this sort of prosecutorial overreach, but in this case I guess the lesson would be not to overlook the corruption of fellow judges. High school students are held to that standard; I think we can hold judges to it. Even if the co-defendant didn't profit as enthusiastically from the false imprisonment of children, he had to have known it was happening.
        s_q_b 10y ago
  - pc86 10y ago
    Another problem with using decade-old sources :) The article above is from 2/29/09. A 2014 article[0] shows their guilty pleas were later rejected due to their behavior, and both given larger sentences. > Both originally agreed to spend seven years in prison, but then Ciavarella talked exclusively with Newswatch 16. > "I loved the juvenile court, I loved helping those kids. I would never do anything to hurt a child, that's just not what I do. That's not me. I was always there for those kids. I resent the fact that people think I did something improper. I didn't do anything improper when it came to the care of those kids," said Ciavarella in July of 2009. > Days after that interview, a federal judge rejected the guilty pleas of Ciavarella and Conahan, saying their behavior didn't really accept guilt. [0] http://wnep.com/2014/01/26/five-years-since-ciavarella-and-conahan-were-charged/ http://wnep.com/2014/01/26/five-years-since-ciavarella-and-c...
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      The article you link to says it may be outdated :) Do you know of their current status?
      - citruspi 10y ago
        According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons' inmate locator[0]: Mark Ciavarella (#15008-067): Ashland FCI until 30 December 2035 Michael Conahan (#15009-067): Coleman Low FCI until 18 December 2026 [0] https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/
s_q_b 10y ago
This occurred a few miles away from where I grew up. My mother's former law partner is the President Judge of the county, and another partner at her firm was appointed to fill one of the vacancies left open on the county bench. Both were uninvolved, assisted with the Federal investigation, and had no knowledge of the scheme. They were cleared of all wrongdoing and continued in their judicial role. It's still unbelievable to me. These judges and contractors were well-respected members of the community. Yet they committed perhaps one of the most heinous breaches of trust possible in a justice system: selling children into prison for personal profit. I met these men. They did not start out "evil." However, in a relatively isolated Rust Belt region, the judges are some of the most powerful political figures in the county. The conspirators messages show the slow progression from neutrality into almost gleeful corruption, as they became intoxicated with the power of the bench.

Unbeliever69 10y ago

Agree 100%. A small step in the right direction. Our criminal justice system needs serious overhauls on SO many levels. Unfortunately, it is not only the fault of law enforcement, politicians, and judges. They are simply representing the will of the people. The heart of American citizens need to change. We live in such an unforgiving society. Despite what anyone says, America and Americans don't believe in 2nd chances. Anyone that survives our legal system and incarceration will NEVER have a true 2nd chance because we as Americans cannot and will not collectively forgive. I blame the media to be honest for perpetuating fear in the hearts of the masses. We live in a sad country filled with sad, fearful, unforgiving people. Maybe a blanket statement, but one that I believe to be true.

bradleyankrom 10y ago
I don't think it's necessarily the will of the people that they are representing, unless you mean 'people' in the Citizens United sense.
helthanatos 10y ago
We need 40 lashes instead of 2 years in prison. We need a harsher system that accurately punishes crime.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  While I agree with the downvoting of this comment for the primitive perspective, I do also agree with the sentiment. Prison time does very little to change people and makes them more likely to re-offend. What matters is repaying the "debt" to society. Hard to do when a year in prison can cost more to the taxpayer than a year at Harvard.
  - ryanlol 10y ago
    >Prison time does very little to change people Probably most out-of-touch statement of the year.
    - 10y ago

downandout 10y ago

Another good step would be to legally bar organizations that directly benefit from jails/prisons from lobbying for any law that is likely to result in more prisoners or higher sentences. These would include correctional officer/law enforcement unions, bail bond companies, criminal defense attorneys, and any company that derives most of its revenue from selling goods or services to jails/prisons, inmates, or criminal defendants.

Anon1096 10y ago
So basically you want to outlaw lobbying for representation? That's the outcome of your proposals. A union is no different than an individual, except that many people are included in the group. Outlawing lobbying by unions means that I, if I were theoretically a prison guard, can't lobby (ask for representation) from my local lawmakers on issues that I think matter. Is that the world you want to live in? What if this were applied to a group you support, like restricting the EFF's ability to lobby because they have a conflict of interest. I really think that many people advocating any type of lobbying restriction needs to stop and think about the consequences of what they are working towards before proceeding.
- downandout 10y ago
  No, I don't want to "basically outlaw lobbying for representation". I said nothing of the sort. I said that organizations that directly profit from criminal laws shouldn't be able to lobby for them. Criminal laws do tremendous damage to the lives of the people they affect, and as such need to be deliberated without the influence of people that will financially benefit from them. And yes, a world where criminal laws are not able to be influenced by people that will profit from them is definitely one I want to live in.
  - alistairSH 10y ago
    Should we, as software developers and IT professionals, be able to lobby about information security? Net neutrality? If we can't, and Verizon/Cox also can't (they also have a conflict), who is left? People who either don't care or lack enough knowledge of the issue to make reasonable policy recommendations?

Shivetya 10y ago

I always found it amazing that people would bitch up a storm about private prisons when their numbers are so low and how much state, city, and even county prisons, were built just to profit off of incarceration namely through importing prisoners. that and the they (politicians, police, etc) should be in prison themselves for their head nodding reaction to prison violence to include rape. just nodding your head and shrugging should never had been acceptable

finid 10y ago

Right thing to do, but at the state level, that will be a tough fight. Knowing the group of people that are most likely to be imprisoned, tough chance.

godzillabrennus 10y ago

If anyone is interested in organizing a campaign for their state representatives in California please feel free to hit me up for a free beta of our new grassroots advocacy platform. The website http://www.fastadvocate.com http://www.fastadvocate.com talks a bit more about our capabilities. hn (at) fastadvcoate (dot) com - you can email me here if you want to chat more.