2 ms·

It was probably written to incentivize the sheriff to lower spending. To prevent abuse, the sheriff has to personally cover any budget shortfalls. What probabl

It was probably written to incentivize the sheriff to lower spending. To prevent abuse, the sheriff has to personally cover any budget shortfalls. What probably happened was people abused the law as way of giving the sheriff a raise without actually giving him a raise.

soundwave106 9y ago
From what I see in Alabama's laws (https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2009/Title14/Chapter6/Chapter6.html https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2009/Title14/Chapter6/C...), it's more that there is a severe lack of "who watches the watchmen" set up in the laws, leading to what I see as the corruption described in the article. There is a section that says that yes, the sheriff has the duty to feed the prisoners. There is a section that dictates the amount per capita. There is a brief section on supervision (14-6-41 -- the Board of Corrections and county commission in theory should supervise the feeding). There is no section that I see so far that says the sheriff is supposed to pocket the change. There is, however, a section in 14-6-41 dictating that the sheriff doesn't have to create a daily record of food, though. So there's no audit trail. Basically, it's a system that is very loose, the state gives the sheriff money, and that's it. Thus if the Board of Corrections and county commission "look the other way" on this sort of setup, the sheriff could easily pocket "cost savings". Alabama is not exactly known for its lack of corruption in government, so this story doesn't surprise me. (Added pet peeve note: I really dislike media articles that reference "the law" without even providing a fleeting reference to what "the law" is. It's possible I missed a statute that more toes to the NPR story, but NPR sure isn't helping me look up what they are talking about with that article.)

2 ms·

It was probably written to incentivize the sheriff to lower spending. To prevent abuse, the sheriff has to personally cover any budget shortfalls. What probabl

by RandallBrown 9y ago

soundwave106 9y ago
From what I see in Alabama's laws (https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2009/Title14/Chapter6/Chapter6.html https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2009/Title14/Chapter6/C...), it's more that there is a severe lack of "who watches the watchmen" set up in the laws, leading to what I see as the corruption described in the article. There is a section that says that yes, the sheriff has the duty to feed the prisoners. There is a section that dictates the amount per capita. There is a brief section on supervision (14-6-41 -- the Board of Corrections and county commission in theory should supervise the feeding). There is no section that I see so far that says the sheriff is supposed to pocket the change. There is, however, a section in 14-6-41 dictating that the sheriff doesn't have to create a daily record of food, though. So there's no audit trail. Basically, it's a system that is very loose, the state gives the sheriff money, and that's it. Thus if the Board of Corrections and county commission "look the other way" on this sort of setup, the sheriff could easily pocket "cost savings". Alabama is not exactly known for its lack of corruption in government, so this story doesn't surprise me. (Added pet peeve note: I really dislike media articles that reference "the law" without even providing a fleeting reference to what "the law" is. It's possible I missed a statute that more toes to the NPR story, but NPR sure isn't helping me look up what they are talking about with that article.)