Thread: The usual suspects refuse to comply with federal law

What's wrong with prison rape anyway?

The governors of Idaho, Texas, Indiana, Utah and Arizona have informed U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that they won't try to meet the standards required under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Governors were required to certify by May 15 that their states either met the standards designed to curb widespread sexual abuse behind bars, or to promise that they were actively working toward that goal.

BOISE, Idaho: Idaho, other states opting out of federal prison rape law | National | Idahostatesman.com

Originally Posted by boisebo

what's wrong with prison rape anyway?

the governors of idaho, texas, indiana, utah and arizona have informed u.s. Attorney general eric holder that they won't try to meet the standards required under the prison rape elimination act. Governors were required to certify by may 15 that their states either met the standards designed to curb widespread sexual abuse behind bars, or to promise that they were actively working toward that goal.

boise, idaho: Idaho, other states opting out of federal prison rape law | national | idahostatesman.com

wtf???

Originally Posted by Hollywood

wtf???

It was passed in 2003 under you know who. They'd comply if it weren't for the black guy in the White House they ever-so hate.

If these states don't want the money.....

Originally Posted by Rasselas

If these states don't want the money.....

Yeah, they need to withhold ALL the federal corrections money and not just 5%. Maybe Holder needs to change that. No soup for you!

The law's only enforcement mechanism is a partial loss of grant funding. States that don't comply with PREA can lose up to 5 percent of the federal grant money they receive for corrections. States can keep the money if they promise to use it to come into compliance with the law.

Originally Posted by BoiseBo

Yeah, they need to withhold ALL the federal corrections money and not just 5%. Maybe Holder needs to change that. No soup for you!

The law's only enforcement mechanism is a partial loss of grant funding. States that don't comply with PREA can lose up to 5 percent of the federal grant money they receive for corrections. States can keep the money if they promise to use it to come into compliance with the law.

They'd need to pass new legislation for that. This passed unanimously in 2003. I wonder how many votes they'd get to strengthen it?

If these states find that the money they get isn't enough to cover their costs, you gotta figure it's a logical decision. Besides, all those felons deserve the love they give each other, right?

Originally Posted by BoiseBo

It was passed in 2003 under you know who. They'd comply if it weren't for the black guy in the White House they ever-so hate.

A link for this assertion would be greatly appreciated.

Originally Posted by Dutch

A link for this assertion would be greatly appreciated.

It's in my TP link pretty much in black & white. No link needed.

The Prison Rape Elimination Act was passed unanimously by Congress in 2003. The next several years were spent developing PREA standards, and in 2012 those rules went into effect. The Department of Justice is expected to publish a list of PREA-compliant states by September.

Originally Posted by BoiseBo

It's in my TP link pretty much in black & white. No link needed.

The Prison Rape Elimination Act was passed unanimously by Congress in 2003. The next several years were spent developing PREA standards, and in 2012 those rules went into effect. The Department of Justice is expected to publish a list of PREA-compliant states by September.

So the ACTUAL DETAILS/COSTS of the law didn't EXIST until 2012.

Originally Posted by BoiseBo

Yeah, they need to withhold ALL the federal corrections money and not just 5%. Maybe Holder needs to change that. No soup for you!

The law's only enforcement mechanism is a partial loss of grant funding. States that don't comply with PREA can lose up to 5 percent of the federal grant money they receive for corrections. States can keep the money if they promise to use it to come into compliance with the law.

The 5% figure is actually a product of constitutional law. Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to dictate things like the internal policies of state prisons to state governments. It can pressure states to adopt policies that meet certain standards, as it is doing here, but when it gets so forceful that practically speaking, states could not refuse to comply, than it is crosses the line into "commandeering" state government, which is unconstitutional.

The courts have concluded that 5% is acceptable in a number of contexts, like education and the drinking age, but they have struck other attempts to use spending to push policy on states because they threatened to hold back more. 5% isn't necessarily the max they could do. The analysis looks at the total dollar figure, how much the state needs that kind of funding, how closely the policy imposed is related to the purpose of the spending,etc. But, 5% appears to be always ok, where above that line, they would be risking having it overturned by a court.