4 ms·

Well that is a pretty bad law. I wonder what the origin of that law is?

jedberg 5y ago
The good interpretation is that it incentivized the Sherrif to cut costs by getting a bonus in doing so. The probably more accurate interpretation was that it was a way to continue the policy of slavery while enriching the Sherrif for torturing the inmates with terrible food.
- vkou 5y ago
  Why should the state incentivize an employee to cut costs, when the state receives 0% of that cost savings? Nope, this just smells like regular old good-old-boys-run-of-the-mill corruption to me, on top of an enormous moral hazard[1]. [1] Since this concerns prisoners.
  - jedberg 5y ago
    > Why should the state incentivize an employee to cut costs, when the state receives 0% of that cost savings? The ethical Sherrif would use the savings to make other improvements at the prison, or at least some of it. The loophole was that it doesn't stop them from just keeping it.
    - vkou 5y ago
      Why on earth would anyone expect that to be the resulting behaviour of this ruleset. That's not a 'loophole', that's just defective by design. I'll also point out that an 'ethical' dictator-king with absolute power would be a fantastic solution to government, but I haven't seen too many people advocate for one. Because such an approach to governance is, too, defective by design.
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    It doesn’t incentivize cutting costs, but it it does effectively impose a maximum cost as the Sheriff has to eat any cost overruns. The state can pay $2 per person and not a penny more, no matter what.
    - vkou 5y ago
      Since he's pocketing a mountain of money, they are clearly overpaying, and the contract should be going out to public bid. If he is so great at feeding inmates, then surely, he should have no problem winning that bid.
MattGaiser 5y ago
From the article, it basically seemed like a county jail was essentially a secure boarding house where the wife of the sheriff did the food prep. In that case, a per diem would have been a lot easier administratively. Alabama has 67 counties. That's a lot of different jurisdictions to keep track of.

The good interpretation is that it incentivized the Sherrif to cut costs by getting a bonus in doing so. The probably more accurate interpretation was that it was a way to continue the policy of slavery while enriching the Sherrif for torturing the inmates with terrible food.

vkou 5y ago
Why should the state incentivize an employee to cut costs, when the state receives 0% of that cost savings? Nope, this just smells like regular old good-old-boys-run-of-the-mill corruption to me, on top of an enormous moral hazard[1]. [1] Since this concerns prisoners.
- jedberg 5y ago
  > Why should the state incentivize an employee to cut costs, when the state receives 0% of that cost savings? The ethical Sherrif would use the savings to make other improvements at the prison, or at least some of it. The loophole was that it doesn't stop them from just keeping it.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Why on earth would anyone expect that to be the resulting behaviour of this ruleset. That's not a 'loophole', that's just defective by design. I'll also point out that an 'ethical' dictator-king with absolute power would be a fantastic solution to government, but I haven't seen too many people advocate for one. Because such an approach to governance is, too, defective by design.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  It doesn’t incentivize cutting costs, but it it does effectively impose a maximum cost as the Sheriff has to eat any cost overruns. The state can pay $2 per person and not a penny more, no matter what.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Since he's pocketing a mountain of money, they are clearly overpaying, and the contract should be going out to public bid. If he is so great at feeding inmates, then surely, he should have no problem winning that bid.

MattGaiser 5y ago

From the article, it basically seemed like a county jail was essentially a secure boarding house where the wife of the sheriff did the food prep. In that case, a per diem would have been a lot easier administratively. Alabama has 67 counties. That's a lot of different jurisdictions to keep track of.