Based on that article the Sheriff did everything he was required to do, he fed them, then he pocketed the rest all in line with law, it's not his fault that the law and lawyers interpret that law that way, if anything this is a failure of the Alabama Congress to do what is right by the inmates. I mean everybody is pretty peeved about his taking of money, nobody seems to care about the 2009 debt he had:
When Entrekin was appointed sheriff in November 2007 - to fill a vacancy left by the death of Sheriff James Hayes - he had to borrow $150,000 to continue feeding the inmates. Entrekin reduced the debt to about $35,000, but with the increased cost of food, he says his debt now is more than the amount he originally borrowed.
I fully believe this should be changed because it's very open to corruption, it's just not against the law and he is within his rights to do this, but I don't agree with buying $2mm worth of properties. That money could have been used for other programs at the jail. I also assume this sheriff feeds his prisoners more than just bologna sandwiches because another appeared before a federal judge who chastised him and no longer takes money because he failed to properly feed the inmates, he fed them corn dogs twice a day. Source: Corn Dogs
You also have this:
A constitutional amendment approved in 1977 makes it optional for county commissioners to take over the feeding responsibility.
Which means the county didn't want to pay for it.
The sheriff can buy food items and transfer them to the business without paying sales tax and can use any surplus money as personal income. The state bid law does not apply because the law directs the sheriff to operate it as a personal business.
An attorney general’s opinion issued last year said sheriffs have to keep the money left over after feeding prisoners. Entrekin said the law, as it is written, is outdated and needs to be changed, but any change could cost taxpayers more money. The county commission would have to purchase all food under the bid law, and it is estimated it would lose about $1 million a year, Entrekin said.
The commission still has no interest in taking over the feeding of the prisoners, Entrekin said.
The law was written in 1911, at a time when the sheriff and his family lived in the jail. The sheriff’s wife usually cooked for her family and the prisoners. In those days, sheriffs did not get a salary and were paid by the fees they brought in.
TL,DR: This went long and rambly if it doesn't make sense down vote it. It just went too long to just delete and go about my day. The point, it looks corrupt but is completely legal and there seems to be a failure of the state and not the sheriff himself.
Based on that article the Sheriff did everything he was required to do, he fed them, then he pocketed the rest all in line with law, it's not his fault that the law and lawyers interpret that law that way, if anything this is a failure of the Alabama Congress to do what is right by the inmates. I mean everybody is pretty peeved about his taking of money, nobody seems to care about the 2009 debt he had:
I fully believe this should be changed because it's very open to corruption, it's just not against the law and he is within his rights to do this, but I don't agree with buying $2mm worth of properties. That money could have been used for other programs at the jail. I also assume this sheriff feeds his prisoners more than just bologna sandwiches because another appeared before a federal judge who chastised him and no longer takes money because he failed to properly feed the inmates, he fed them corn dogs twice a day. Source: Corn Dogs
You also have this:
Which means the county didn't want to pay for it.
Source: Not OP Article Quotes
TL,DR: This went long and rambly if it doesn't make sense down vote it. It just went too long to just delete and go about my day. The point, it looks corrupt but is completely legal and there seems to be a failure of the state and not the sheriff himself.