Sheriff Pocket's $450,000 Of Taxpayer Dollars Dedicated To Feeding Prisoners

Submitted by: normalfreak2 9 months ago in Funny Misc News & Politics Weird




Here's a little reporting from AL.com about this fun story

Monroe County Sheriff Thomas Tate recently provided the Southern Center for Human Rights with copies of handwritten ledgers detailing exactly how much money his office received from federal state and municipal governments to feed inmates in 2014, 2015 and 2016, and what was done with those funds.

The documents show that the Monroe County Sheriff's Office received a total of $423,364.60 over that three-year period to pay for a total of 83,878 days worth of meals for inmates - a measure referred to as "inmate days" - in the county's jails. Of that money, $110,459.77 was "declared excess and paid to Sheriff Thomas Tate," according to the ledgers.


The amount of "excess" funds Tate received rose each year, despite the fact that the number of inmate days fell each year and the per diem amounts paid to his office - $1.80 per state inmate per day; $5 per municipal inmate per day; and $10 per federal inmate per day- did not change between 2014 and 2016. In 2014, he pocketed less than $29,000; in 2016, he personally received more than $44,000. As of the 2010 U.S. Census, Monroe County was home to just 23,068 residents.

"I do it just like the law tells us to. That's about all I have to say about that," Tate said during a brief phone interview with AL.com Friday. "We feed all our inmates good and the excess goes to the sheriff. If you declare it excess, you take it and you pay taxes on it."

Etowah County Sheriff Todd Entrekin says that he has advocated for the county commission to handle the funds used to feed inmates in his jail. But that has yet to happen, and in the meantime he says he keeps the funds that remain after his inmates have been fed.

"The law says it's a personal account and that's the way I've always done it and that's the way the law reads and that's the way I do business," he said in a phone interview Friday. "That's the way the law's written."

There are 32 comments:
Male 10,234
Is it right? Debatable.  There's pro's and con's either way.

Is it legal? Absolutely.  So you can't exactly charge him with anything.

Don't like it? Change the long standing law.
0
Reply
Male 625
I would think that money could go for much better purposes in the community than lining this dickheads pocket......:(
0
Reply
Male 1,124
For-profit prisons. What could go wrong?
1
Reply
828
Oh, and this shit stain has this to say as well: "I don't give a damn what you say or what you do. I don't give a damn what your people say either. I'm going to put twelve people on a jury who are going to find your goddamn black ass guilty."

He put an innocent man on death row, the victim's sentence was overturned on the basis of Tate's coercion and witness perjury.
1
Reply
Male 946
barry9a That's interesting when you put in perspective that we know that sometimes innocent people end up in jail, but we don't completely throw out the justice system mind you this is an elected official and LEO. Yet when some random feminist on twitter said if some innocent men go down in the #MeToo movement so be it, people are outraged.
0
Reply
Male 9,692
barry9a Based on this information I figured out why Conservatives distrust Government.  When they are put in charge they fuck everything up royally.  If I were a Conservative leaning person I wouldn't trust any Government either.  
0
Reply
Male 2,799
normalfreak2   Not sure what you are trying to say, is it that when Conservatives are put in charge they fuck it up, or when conservatives  put anyone in charge they fuck it up?
   Be cause Sheriff Thomas Tate is a Democrat so I can see why Conservatives would be pissed. And some how I don't think that Conservatives put him in office.
 
That is according to the Alabama Sheriffs Association   http://alabamasheriffs.com/county_map/county/50.
(hope I got that right)
0
Reply
Male 9,692
casaledana Democrat =/= Liberal doesn't =/= Conservative.  This guy is a Conservative, Based on tone and tenor, he can call himself a Democrat or Republican I do not care.  Party doesn't dictate, SHOULDN'T dictate if you or one or the other.  I think that's a huge problem with the parties today.  
0
Reply
828
normalfreak2 Ironic, isn't it, how the conservatives paint themselves as the only ones who know how to govern, and they keep making a pig's breakfast of it.

I still can't believe after SIX YEARS of GOP hysteria about obamacare, they still had nothing to replace it with. Six years of constant bitching about an opponent's policy, and never once did they think to write something up to replace it. "Nah, we'll just wing it on the day!" for something as complex an issue as the healthcare system.

At least progressives actually try to help other people while they feather their own nests.
1
Reply
Male 10,234
barry9a they still had nothing to replace it with.

That's mainly because many people don't think it SHOULD be replace, nor that it ever should have been enacted.  Some people think that government should stay the hell out of healthcare.
0
Reply
828
megrendel And they didn't even have a plan for that, either. No plan to delineate the withdrawal of ACA, or how the vacuum was going to be filled when it was gone.
0
Reply
Male 5,344
The inmates don't pay for their own meals?
-1
Reply
Male 13,505
What would you expect in a nation that embraces the love for money?  Honest people in positions of power? lol!!
-1
Reply
Male 2,799
monkwarrior  And what world do you live in that has completely honest people in government. It don't exist in this world. And study's have shown that the government in the U.S. is one of the more honest ones, meaning less  bribes etc.
0
Reply
Male 9,631
casaledana I understand the US ranks around 18th for honest government.  
0
Reply
Male 13,505
casaledana corrupt is still corrupt.
0
Reply
828
The US really fucked up by divorcing from the UK before Peelian Principles came about in the early 1800s. Peelian Principles have spread through the commonwealth, and basically see the cop as "empowered by community consent". This kind of unethical behaviour simply wouldn't fly under that philosophy. It's not to say there aren't arsehole cops in the Peelian system, but the scale of the arseholishness is nothing like this.

Whereas in the US, cops function very much on an 'us versus them'/'team good vs team bad' dichotomy, and if it's legal to screw someone over, then it's ethical to screw them over. Cops know damn well that in moral terms it's theft when they do civil forfeiture stuff, but fuck it, civilians aren't on our team, and the law says we can do it!
1
Reply
Male 710
barry9a I wonder how much more "empowered by community consent" a sheriff can be beyond being elected.  In Alabama Sheriff is an elected position......

1
Reply
Male 259
dang007  this is the same place that roy moore almost won office in the senate. 
2
Reply
828
dang007 Because as we know, elections in the US are the cleanest in existence, and you always have a good selection of choices available to suit your needs. Oh, and the community always fully participates.

In Peelian terms, "Policing by consent" indicates that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so, so it's not about showing a charming face to a handful of voters and then doing what you want until the next election.

Also, elections for LEOs is a really bad idea, because you swap diligance for short-term-gain popularism. Sometimes the way to actually lower crime isn't the stuff screaming from the tabloid front pages.
2
Reply
Male 710
barry9a So policing only occurs by consent, yet the populace never votes to provide their consent? Sounds logical to me. Exactly when does “consent” happen? If I get stopped for speeding do I just say I do not give “consent” and on my way I go? Or is it the further out of the peoples hands we take the appointment of a sheriff, appointed vs. elected, the more consent they gave? You do realize that sheriffs are only one level of law enforcement in the US right. In most places you have state police, city forces, sheriffs, etc. in addition to the federal agencies, some are elected, some appointed, some elected in some states and appointed in others. 

 

And in any case if the populace does not “consent” to his activities he will get voted out at the next election…..

1
Reply
828

 If I get stopped for speeding do I just say I do not give “consent” and on my way I go?

You didn't even need to read the link I gave to give the answer to that, because it was in the link text. 

So, since this is your gambit, tell me how electing your sheriff would get you out of your speeding ticket, mr "the only way to get consent is from elections". What are you going to do, hold a snap election on the roadside?
0
Reply
Male 710
barry9a >>What are you going to do, hold a snap election on the roadside.<<

Of course not and that is exactly my original point which seems to have gone over your head.

While I do not want to put words in your mouth, you did quote “"Policing by consent" indicates that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so,” My question still stands how much more “empowered by community consent” a sheriff can be beyond being elected on a regular basis? Or to put it more bluntly, without some form of voting by the public how exactly is “consent” provided?

I am not asking for evidence that consent of the population would be given if asked I am asking how it is formally given in the first place. Discussing how police should work with the population they are policing and quoting the nine principles of policing may indicate how the police convince the population to provide that consent. However, these behaviors by the police in and of themselves do not give the police that consent. Police cannot give themselves “consent” it need to be granted by the people. So we are back to my original question.

You responded to my original thought by questioning elections, which of course are never perfect. Again, while I do not want to put words in your mouth, you stated, “Because as we know, elections in the US are the cleanest in existence, and you always have a good selection of choices available to suit your needs. Oh, and the community always fully participates.” I agree with you that voting is not perfect nor am I arguing that there is not room for significant improvement. However, I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, from your comments that you have identified some other, better, mechanism for the public to provide their “consent.” If so please elaborate. Restating the concept that police should be “empowered by community consent,” is not an answer to the question of how this consent is provided other than through elections.

0
Reply
Male 9,631
barry9a Couldn't agree more .
0
Reply
Male 2,799
Yes, Living in Alabama I heard about this some time ago. The law has been on the books sense the 1040s so its not some thing just suddenly came into existence, and I have every reason to think that he is not the first to take advantage of the rule. I would have to believe that the inmates are getting feed properly. Having spent some months in jail in Florida the food was not extravagant but acquit they feed a 1200 calories a day I think not a lot but I did lose weight that I really didn't need. About 20lbs in 40 days if I remember right.
  I would like to see the rule changed I don,t think that this is a good use of government money, if there is an excess it should be put back in to the general funds. I plan on writing to my reps about this soon.
  
1
Reply
Male 620
casaledana  Pennsylvania state prisons offer 2000+ calories a day.  
1
Reply
Male 46,107
casaledana   Wow! 1040 is an old law as Columbus didn't even get here until 450 years later
0
Reply
Male 2,799
Gerry1of1  Correction (see how I did that) 1940s (dam editor will have to fire him)
0
Reply
Male 46,107
casaledana I knew it was a typo. No reason not to ride  you a bit though
0
Reply
Male 620
It looks like an incentive to keep local costs down.  If the inmates are well-fed, then there is no problem.  The county sets the cost to house inmates in their facilities.
1
Reply
Male 286
mentott510 But the cost doesn't change, he just pockets what he doesn't use. If the food they're getting is good enough, than they could have used that 450k doing something for the tax payers benefit.
1
Reply
Male 9,692
mentott510 Sounds like an ass-backwards incentive.  IE I need more money, I better jail more people to get more money!
0
Reply