No, feeding prisoners for $1.75 a day should not be celebrated, it should be considered cruel and unusual punishment and the sheriffs should have to spend a week in jail eating what they 'bought'.

"sheriffs should have to spend a week in jail eating what they 'bought'."

Sounds like a good idea stephly.

I can live on less. A pound of beans only costs a dollar and it lasts me a few days. You can keep the seventy five cents.

I am confused by this statement: One new sheriff said he and his wife took out a loan for $150,000 the day he took office to buy food until his first state payment came through.

Was this really to just buy food or was it to pay bills as well. I know working for the state sometimes you don't get paid until like a month after you take the job and that is on course with the pay period, sometimes it may be longer depending on when you start.

The article was a little vague on it but the line, "His successor, Todd Entrekin, said he and his wife took out a personal loan for $150,000 the day he took office to purchase jail food until his first state payment came through." led me to believe it's the allowance for the food purchases.

I don't think there is too much of a chance of the prisoners being mistreated if the sheriffs are liable for any lawsuit due to the food. Plus if they buy alot in bulk, and focus more on the actually nutritioal value over taste you can eat very healthfully for very little. the example of beans is spot on

This is one area where I'll have to disagree with you, stephley I say, as long as the prisoners' health doesn't suffer from the food they eat, it's fine. I see no reason why convicted criminals serving time should expect tasty delicious meals.

I do, however, think it's disturbing that the sheriffs would get to keep the difference. That would encourage them to skimp to the point where the criminals' health really does suffer from their diets.

The sheriff had to take out a loan because the guy before him died with all the state money for inmate food in HIS PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNT:

In Morgan County, which includes Decatur, a state audit found that Sheriff Greg Bartlett spent $163,991 feeding inmates and personally received an additional $103,947 for two years ending in May 2005.
When Etowah County Sheriff James Hayes died in October, thousands of dollars in jail food money went to his estate because it was kept in his personal accounts.

Adults are expected to live on:
two pancakes and syrup, sausage and milk for breakfast; peanut butter sandwiches, chips and Kool-Aid for lunch; and white beans, turnip greens, fried squash, cornbread and sweet tea for dinner.

Just because a person can live on beans and not die doesn't mean it's right to make them do it.

Maybe I'm going out on a limb on this one but I do think that prisoner’s meals should taste good. Good food contributes to good moral. As strange as it sounds you don't want a prison population with low moral. It makes it more dangerous for prison staff and low moral contributes to a hostile environment.

And before some smarty pants says oh so if their food tastes bland they're going to start a riot. NO. It is simply a contributing factor that's all.

stephley beans is goood girl and you got all kind of beans so you can change up the taste. Dip a slice of warm fresh french bread in the broth Mmm M!

Hypno, the last time me and the fiance were broke, we made a can of beans and some rice with the seasonings we had laying around, and it was so good that we now keep that stuff on hand as staples!

I see what you both mean, but I gotta say, stephley, that your description of what the prisoners eat daily is actually far better than how I eat usually!

I think that as far as morale goes, the cost of the food, which again I think should be low as long as nutrition doesn't suffer, may not matter as much as variety. I'm certainly not advocating that prisoners be served gruel and water every day for the duration of their sentences

Beans may be fine, personally, I'm very happy with 5 Oreos and a glass of milk - but what you and I like occasionally should not be the standard for any government run facility.

This is PRISON. As long as the prisoners are being fed food that meets dietary guidelines, I don't care if the spen $.75/day

No Dave, read the article - it's jail. There is a difference.
No where in the article does it say anyone checks whether it meets dietary guidelines.

That amount of money sounds ridiculously low, but the menu stephley posted sounds fine to me. I don't see anything wrong with that. That food sounds like pretty standard Southern fare. It actually sounds a lot like what they serve my kids at school. Frankly, it really annoys me and I wish they would serve them healthier food, but I have to wonder if the average jail resident in Alabama would be happier losing their kool-aid and gaining healthy food or not...

I would also venture to say that no one is making anybody live on that diet, prisoners generally make a choice that gets them there. Granted, if it's a jail not a prison then there are people there who will be found innocent.

I think the idea of holding beaurocrats personally responsible for their spending is a great idea. Generally, beaurocrats have NEGATIVE incentive to save money - if they don't spend their entire budget, chances are they'll get LESS the next year.

Stephly from the description of what the prisoners get it sounds pretty decent. It's weird because I have a unique perspective on this. My ex-husband spent some time in prison while we were together and I remember hearing him complain about food at times and in some cases it was less that what these gentlemen get, so I don't see their daily menu as cruel and unusual at all. But at the same time I see Hypno's point about morale. It's kinda important when you have prisoners who don't give a rats ass because they already have a life scentence. If morale drops and drops eventually they just snap. Also they have something called a commisary in prison. They have a personal "bank account" so to speak and their family and friends can put money on their books. They usually get a catalog to buy things from and it has tons of junk food in it. Trust me prison isn't as hard as lots of people would like to make it seem. Go figure my ex went back. It was easier than living a real life.

Do you like the idea that the Sheriff's estate got at least $100,000 from the money he saved the state? That savings did nothing for Alabama's taxpayers.

Do I think that's the best possible outcome? No. In the private sector, managers who are able to streamline their departments and run more efficiently often benefit personally. Why not in the public sector? If the Sheriff hadn't received the money who would have? Vendors? I don't see that as necessarily better.

It just seems wrong to me that a sheriff's estate received $100,000 dollars of tax payer money. How nutrious is peanut butter sandwiches, chips, fried squash, sweet tea, and Kool- Aid? Is this what they eat every day? Is there any variety? Will the health problems prisoners face from a poor diet become a burden for tax payers? Healthy foods cost more. Sad but true. When you buy cheap, you are usually buying fat, sugar, and calories.

I lived off of eating 25 cents worth of ramen a day in college.

Two table spoons of peanut butter can have between 14-16 grams of fat, suger (about 3g), salt(about 150mg), and oil added to them. Then add potato chips that have about 10g of fat and 150mg of sodium in an ounce. Sweet tea (which I love) is pure sugar. These meals are not healthy. As long as prisoners are in state custody, tax payers are responsible for their medical needs.

Maybe instead of the guy's estate or vendors the money could have been spent as it was intended - to buy food for the people in jail. Not everyone in jail is a drooling psychopath - any one of us could have a car accident and end up charged with vehicular homicide. We could be sent to jail to await trial and could end up being there for months. Being in jail is supposed to be the consequence, and a just society shouldn't want to make it worse by underfeeding people serving their time.
If we eat beans or cookies or ramen for breakfast lunch and dinner, that's our choice - we could go out and earn, borrow or beg money for more food, we have our freedom.
Prisoners don't and it's a troubling morality that says so what, feed them sandwiches and keep the change for yourself. I wouldn't want to be the kind of person who does that.

Stephley, I'm having a hard time understanding your outrage that a dedicated public servant might be compensated for cost savings on his watch.

That menu doesn't sound like "underfeeding" to me. Is it less than a typically gluttonous American meal? Sure. But, that by no means signifies underfeeding.

I also think there might be a cultural issue here. Beans might seem like a horrible thing to eat for you, but they are a huge part of a lot of regional diets.

And again, I ask if you put it to a vote, do you believe the average jail resident in Alabama would choose to trade in their chips and greens for something deemed healthier? I've lived in the South for a while, and I can tell you that people here love their greens. At what point do you quash the personal preferences of the diners themselves to do the thing that sounds more right to outsiders?

When a dedicated public servant saves by giving cheaper, possibly inferior but maybe not, medicine is that okay? If they save money at the transportation dept by using cheaper, possibly inferior but maybe not, engine parts, is that good? If we let every public servant keep the money they save the government, the military will soon find itself using capguns.
Please don't pretend that the sheriffs care what the prisoners like -you know they aren't taking meal surveys. I don't object to beans, its the whole idea of cheaping out on other human beings because you can make a little money off it.
Try feeding your husband that diet for a week then come back and tell me how he's feeling.

this doesn't make much sense to me. I think I am going to have to agree with Stephley here. Money allocated to feeding prisoners should feed the prisoners. if there is money left over, it should be put back into a general fund, or reallocated for the next year. It makes no sense to me that it should go into a Sherrif's pocket. IN fact, it sounds wrong. Isn't that taxpayer money? Am I missing something here?

I'm even more confused by the fact that $1.75 per diem was established 80 years ago and never adjusted for inflation. While I don't think prisoners should be spoiled in prison, I don't understand how 1.75 per day gets you proper nutrition.

I mean, I work for a public entity. If there is money left over in the budget, it certainly doesn't get doled out to all of us who did a good job budgeting. It gets put back into the pot! We can't just give money away because we have extra lying around.

"two pancakes and syrup, sausage and milk for breakfast; peanut butter sandwiches, chips and Kool-Aid for lunch; and white beans, turnip greens, fried squash, cornbread and sweet tea for dinner."

Sorry but this does not sound like their being underfed. Not too mention I'm sure this is an example and the meals change day to day.

I also don't think it is fair to say the sheriffs don't care about the inmates. How do we know?? Who are we to say these sheriffs are evil people in it for the money and the prisoners are good people.

I mean I'm not for starving them or feeding them just ramen, but we don't need people committing crimes because they have it better in jail.

That being said, I think it would be a good idea to figure out a new financial system, if for nothing more so the sheriffs aren't being accused of cheaping out on human beings.

Considering Alabama is a third world country, a dollar is really like three down there so it's not that bad.

Eat it for a week and see if you still think that.

Um, why are prisoners even getting any kind of equal treatment? They have committed crimes and our tax dollars are paying for them? Why?

I never agreed with the penal system...there's no reason for people in prison systems to have more benefits (like cable, heat, food, etc), than a homeless person who has never committed a crime.

Pfft. Sorry to get off topic. I don't think I understood the article too well though. It didn't really make sense about the $150,000 loan...

Jail not prison Lady. The loan was because the first sheriff died and all the money for food was in his personal bank account so it became part of his estate. Until the state sent the new sheriff money to feed the inmates, he had to pony up from his own pocket.
Wait a minute - these are jails, not prisons. Like county jails. I wonder how many inmates there are to feed anyway. Or is some sheriff in a little podunk town laughing all the way to the bank?

A lot should change in 80 years...

I wish I could get pancakes and sausage every morning. The dinner doesn't sound delicious, but it certainly isn't mistreatment. This sounds like a perfectly acceptable diet for a person in jail. However, if there is enough money in the budget to feed these people and have the sheriff walk away with that kind of profit, Alabama obviously needs to adjust the food budget.

Stephley - I find it interesting that you feel the need to remind me that not all prisoners are "drooling psychopaths" yet you are convinced that the Sheriff is a greedy sociopath completely devoid of compassion and could not possibly ever even consider the regional dietary preferences of his prisoners.

As for "feed my husband that diet for a week and see how he feels", this menu is actually similar to what he eats a lot of the time, in the field, on deployments, etc...

And it may surprise you to know that free people actually cook very similar dinners for themselves around here. Heck, they go out to restaurants and buy that! Again, there may be a cultural misunderstanding here. Many people consider beans a delicious, dietary staple not a punishment.

I pointed out that the dead sheriff pocketed thousands of dollars meant to go feed the prisoners. And meals that are similar out of choice, and your husband chose his career, are different from what you are forced to eat in jail.

I don't care that much about this - I come to it from a 'what would I think I should do in a case like this' point. I'm responsible for my behavior my soul, blah blah. And I would consider myself a thief who treated people under my charge inhumanely if I did this or knew it was happening and allowed it to continue.

I was referring to your statement "please don't pretend the sherrifs care what the prisoners like". And I didn't say my husband didn't choose his career, I was responding to your statement "feed your husband this diet for a week and see how he feels". And, again I point out that the majority of people in jail aren't forced into jail. They chose to commit a crime that landed them there.

You and I just don't happen to agree on whether or not that sample menu constitutes mistreatment. If it does, they are mistreating the heck out of my children here in the dirty Souf and my husband in the military. I think if the sherriff is pocketing $50,000 a year, that budget needs to be retooled. But, if the choice is whether the money should go to a dedicated public servant or criminals, I go with the dedicated public servant. And I don't consider him a "thief" for it.

i read this on yahoo, and i was baffled when the sherrifs said sometimes they did make money on top of feeding the prisoners.. crazy... but one sherrif had a decent menu so i guess its possible

Ok and last thing I promise...one thing that might not be taken into consideration here is the fact that lower cost doesn't necessarily equal less food or lower quality food. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game. There are a lot of ways to save money including having different vendors bidding against each other, ordering more from single vendors rather than multiple vendors, ordering less often and storing more, etc...and if the sherriff has a personal stake in the total cost, he will likely work a lot harder to streamline costs in those ways.

I will say that I would be more comfortable with the excess money being returned to the sherriff's department to be spent at the sherriff's discretion than into his personal account. Like I said, I don't necessarily think this is the best possible option. But, I don't think it's a bad option.

I would consider MYSELF a thief if that's how I chose to handle that job.
People don't always end up in jail because they chose to commit a crime. As I said earlier, any one of us could end up in jail after a car accident, charged with something as serious as vehicular homicide. Those take a while to clear up sometimes so even if we're eventually cleared, we could still sit in jail. We're not likely to wind up in prison without some active choosing.

Well, the prisoners at Fort Leavonworth, KS eat for 2.45$ a day... so I guess 1.75 COULD work. I agree though that people shouldn't get to keep the additional money if it's left over, it should just go back to the pot, then their would be no hidden agenda to starve or get poor quality food.

Stephley, I understand your argument about the money but I would be careful to say people in jail haven't committed a crime. You don't go to jail for vehicular homicide if it's an accident, you go bc you were being reckless, drunk, or on drugs.

I understand that this isn't a prison, but how long are they in this jail for? Long enough to be charged, and then sent somewhere else while they await trial, or released on bail?

I also agree that the excess should be reallocated elsewhere. This system only encourages the sheriff's dept to be greedy swindling little bastards, and that's too much temptation for most people.

Didn't say they haven't committed crimes, what I was correcting was CHOOSE to commit crimes. It isn't as hard as people think it is to accidentally get yourself into a boat-load of trouble. Just after an accident, if there's any reason to suspect you're at fault, you MAY be arrested and taken to jail. People can swear out warrants against each other for all kinds of reasons and some innocent people end up spending a couple of days in jail until its sorted out.

Stephley, there are no criminal laws that will punish you for something you did not choose to do. Intent must be proved. Furthermore, it takes a lot more than "any reason to suspect you're at fault" to keep a person in jail. There must be a determination of probable cause by a judge in order to hold a person for longer than 24 hours (varying slightly from state to state). I think it is unreasonable for you to suggest that a person cannot live on that menu indefinitely. I'm curious to know what kind of menu YOU would write for these people, and how much you're personally willing to donate to pay for it.

You seem to have an awful lot to say for somebody with a very limited understanding of the legal system.

Michelin, get arrested on a Friday night then come back and talk to me. No one's telling the sheriffs to pay for it out of their pockets - they're being given more money than they're spending thus putting money into their pockets. I'd spent at least 2.08 on each meal, that's the generous spirit I am.

I do not behave in ways that put me at risk of being arrested. I understand that sometimes these things happen, and I have had several friends arrested. Yes, even sometimes on Fridays. 24 hours (and a few meals) later, they were still perfectly healthy. It is not fun, but it isn't supposed to be.

I know nobody is telling the sheriffs to pay for it from their own money, but even you can understand that citizens are paying for these meals. The cheaper the meals, the less cost to tax-payers. If you personally think these meals are not satisfactory, I suggest you personally give up that $2.08 per meal so that prisoners can eat to YOUR standards. Furthermore, I didn't ask how much you'd spend, I asked what you'd feed them. I can't understand what kind of food you expect prisoners to be fed. As somebody else mentioned, there are many ways to cut costs that don't involve maltreatment.

If you read my previous comments, you'll know that I think it isn't right to give the surplus money to the sheriffs. I believe incentivizing a streamlined program is a good idea, but if they can pocket that much money, the budget is too large.

"I do not behave in ways that put me at risk of being arrested."
My point was, no one should think they can't end up in jail because they behave so well. Sometimes you can be arrested for a very simple mistake that happened at the wrong time at the wrong place and turned into a very serious situation.

"but even you can understand that citizens are paying for these meals."
And citizens are eating these meals, and they should be fed reasonable portions of a variety of healthy foods.

As long as the food is healthy, and substantial, I have no problems with this. I think that having more than one person be responsible for the menu probably results in a variety in what is served, and there is probably more thought that goes into the menu. I am not sure about the sheriff's keeping the extra, but if they are asked to do this off the clock, then definitely I support it, if they are getting paid, not so sure.