Brickbat: Quadruple Dealing

Authorities in Tennessee indicted Gibson County Sheriff Paul Thomas on 22 charges including official misconduct, theft, forgery, and computer crimes involving jail inmates in his custody. Thomas failed to disclose ownership interests in a staffing agency that provided inmates to assist local businesses, a company that housed current and former inmates in a transitional home, and a third company that provided transportation to work-release inmates and former inmates traveling to and from work.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

The unholy alliance of law enforcement officer and politician. But, sure, private for-profit prisons are the danger.

[SRG2]

You do realise that both can be dangers, right?

[Fist of Etiquette]

The danger.

[Vernon Depner]

How did he end up getting prosecuted? He must have failed to pay someone.

[AT]

Interesting. He's pleading not guilty.

And, based on the link, my guess for that would be because he's going to assert that there's no conflict of interest because of the separation between the Sheriff's office and the Dept. of Corrections - and that it was the DOC who was coordinating inmate work. Having an interest in companies that utilize work-release inmates doesn't mean he can't be Sheriff, or that he's abusing his office by doing so. It's the DOC that's calling all the shots here.

Now, granted, that's just a guess because I don't know the full relationship of the Sheriff's Office and the DOC in Tennessee. But the Sheriff would be wise to put the onus on the DOC in keeping on eye on what their inmates are doing and where, when they're outside the grey-bar hotel.

Unless, of course, he's working hand in glove with the DOC for this express purpose - which there's no evidence of that I can see. Especially with this:

Investigators said Thomas also deceived the Tennessee Department of Correction by showing the county jail as the inmate location in the state’s offender management system rather than the transitional home

On its face, that's the only real problematic thing I can see here.

Well, anyway - regardless of how it plays out, it certainly illustrates one thing: keep the inmates in their cells. Period. Just don't let them out for any reason. It's not 1950 anymore. There's no need for it.

[Social Justice is neither]

"Failure to disclose", is that like failing to disclose your habitual drug use while buying a gun? Last I heard there was a lot of wailing that this is irrelevant. Don't get me wrong, there is lots that could be wrong here but scant evidence provided that any of the parade of horribles actually was occurring.

[markm23]

It's corruption. The sheriff was profiting from arranging county contracts with companies that he owned - and keeping that ownership secret.