BOP Sometimes Leaves the Driving to Greyhound: So What?

By TChris, Section Inmates and Prisons
Posted on Sat May 23, 2009 at 11:24:04 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The latest round of Republican fear-mongering (preemptively embraced by the Harry Reid gang) predicts catastrophe if Guantanamo's involuntary residents are imprisoned within the nation's borders. Those who fear that American prisons aren't up to the task of detaining foreign suspected terrorists will likely feel their personal threat levels rise when they read that the Bureau of Prisons routinely transfers prisoners by buying them a bus ticket and sending them on their way to their new destination.

This AP story opens with the news that a 55 year old motorcycle gang member who finished half of his 24 year sentence for delivering cocaine got off the bus in Las Vegas, didn't get back on, and hasn't been recaptured. Losing the biker dude in 2004 must be a bit embarrassing for the U.S. Marshals, who clearly did not know he had $12,000 stashed in a Vegas bank.

Only after reading more than halfway through the story do we learn that more than 90 percent of federal inmates who travel by Greyhound are on their way to a halfway house. It makes no sense to assign federal marshals to supervise the travel of an inmate who can easily flee once he's dropped off at his destination. [more ...]

The AP story doesn't mention this, but some federal defendants who are sentenced to relatively short terms for nonviolent crimes are allowed to self-report. A few weeks after they're sentenced, the Bureau of Prisons tells them to show up at a designated facility (usually a prison camp) by their report dates. They nearly always do.

By the same token, federal inmates who take Greyhound cross-country (talk about torture!) pose a low risk to abscond. They're usually nearing the end of their sentences and are disinclined to live a fugitive life while risking capture, a return to a prison with a higher security level, and a consecutive sentence for escape. Fewer than 1 in 500 unescorted inmates have failed to complete their transfers, and all but 19 of the 77 unescorted inmates who boogied between October 2003 to September 2005 were recaptured.

Inmates with a history of violence are transferred the old fashioned way: in chains. Losing 19 nonviolent prisoners over the course of two years isn't ideal but it isn't anything to get jittery about. Dick Cheney's ongoing liberty poses a greater threat to society, and if Harry Reid's gang ever musters up the courage to allow Guantanamo prisoners to be transferred to federal prisons, the BOP won't be issuing them bus tickets.

< The History of the Presumption of Innocence (Why We Don't Punish Those Not Found Guilty) | "Alleged" Combatants >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

BOP Sometimes Leaves the Driving to Greyhound: So What? | 4 comments (4 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

agreed on bigger problems, but still... (none / 0) (#1)
by Dadler on Sat May 23, 2009 at 03:27:13 PM EST

...it is really phucking stupid not to have simply eliminated prison to prison transfers from this greyhound program to start with. since, as we find out, it is a very small percentage of the transfers done this way. really inexcusably dumb. but someone in risk management obviously thought better. so be it. people going to halfway houses, great, see ya later, have a nice trip. but prison to prison, come on, it just defies common sense.

Well ... (none / 0) (#3)
by TChris on Sat May 23, 2009 at 05:46:58 PM EST

if the transfer is to a federal prison camp, where inmates are typically not fenced in and can pretty easily walk away, the rationale for letting the inmate transfer himself by bus is pretty much the same.


: then why have them there at all (none / 0) (#4)
by Dadler on Sat May 23, 2009 at 11:36:39 PM EST

i just think when someone is LEGITIMATELY being punished for a crime (and certainly i have big problems with non-violent drug offenses being prison sentenced like they are), that you should be in custody at all times. that there should actually be a measure of unpleasantness. call me old fashioned. and skeptical, don't get me wrong, i acknowledge the perfectly legitimate and logical nature of your take.

Amazing what the Republican-Christians will do (none / 0) (#2)
by BruceM on Sat May 23, 2009 at 04:39:21 PM EST

Does anyone else find it amazing that the Republican-Christian Party (cult) has determined that the best response in opposition to bringing terrorist suspects to American prisons is to point out every conceivable flaw with the safety and security of our prisons and the people who operate them?

Do they not foresee any way such a plan might have negative consequences, or do they simply not care? Aside from the fact that their "points" are either misleading (like the greyhound thing) or completely false (they'll be free to roam around our neighborhoods and rape/terrorize your children if they come to America).

Can someone please shut up the Republican-Christian party? Why are they even being given a voice? They are a small minority of Americans and their opinions were clearly rejected in the last election. Just because they're talking doesn't mean the media should report what they're saying. I'm sure the Scientologists have a wacky opinion on all this stuff, too, but you don't see a "Scientology Strategist" talking head on TV every time a democrat is talking about an issue. Let the Republican-Christians earn their right to be heard (not lies and blatant fearmongering).