Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Gordon Bock of Northfield. He is a prisoner advocate with the Vermont’s Corrections Citizens Advisory Group, which consists of volunteers who advise the Corrections Department on policy issues.
The recent outbreak in a Massachusetts jail housing inmates from Vermont serves to remind us that saving money on the state’s prison budget is crucial, especially in a tight economy, but a penny-wise, pound-foolish approach can instill needless anger, tension and resentment in the person who is incarcerated.
Unless the inmate is on death row in a death-penalty state (which Vermont, with rare possible exception in federal murder cases, is not) or unless a Vermont judge imposes “life without” (parole, that is), the person on whom we senselessly heap turmoil will someday be on the streets — maybe in your neighborhood — ready perhaps to “pay forward” the stress.
The Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC) in 2010 contracted with Massachusetts’ Franklin County to house about 100 Vermont prisoners in its Jail and House of Corrections in Greenfield, Mass. The goals, then stated by Corrections Commissioner Andrew Pallito, were two-fold: 1. trim daily per-inmate costs (versus Vermont facilities); 2. allow Vermont families to stay in better touch with incarcerated loved ones just over the border from Brattleboro instead of way down, for example, in Kentucky.
Using the Greenfield facility instead of other out-of-state sites is likely to save Vermont taxpayers more than $357,000 per year, projections supplied by DOC to the Legislature show. But in Greenfield, as in any prison setting, it’s about more than just the numbers.
There is a human cost in the equation. Family members of those incarcerated at the Greenfield facility when havoc erupted on July 7 complain that:
Some Greenfield cells built for two men have been holding three.
There is no outside recreation and thus no “steam-valve” relief in the form of a vigorous basketball or volleyball contest that can mitigate the effect of keeping testosterone in a cage.
Visits to the medium-security jail occur in the classic maximum-security scenario seen in movies and television, with inmate and loved one talking on phones separated by a thick glass pane.
So what? Well, the 101 Vermonters listed as being in Greenfield on July 7 — said to be non-violent inmates, pre-trial detainees and those who await outside housing or bed space in treatment programs — if in Vermont would be in facilities that are at, or below, capacity, as Pallito has been able to report proudly to lawmakers in recent months. (For the record, Vermont DOC officials said July 12 that the Greenfield facility was under capacity, too, with no “triple-bunking”).
In the Green Mountains, however, the Greenfield guys would have access to outside recreational facilities, including basketball courts, volleyball pits and tracks for running or walking (Swanton’s Northwest State Correctional Facility boasts room for all three, and in an area the size of a football field or two). In Vermont, cooing infants bounce on the lap of dad — the lower-risk inmate in open visiting rooms — with perhaps the baby’s mom and other kin on hand maintaining the bond with family and friends that penologists widely acknowledge to be integral in ensuring rehabilitation — and reintegration into society — versus the likelihood of future stays in jail.
This type of inequity — where an inmate at Greenfield knows that he is receiving less access to loved ones and less ability to let off steam than counterparts incarcerated within a few hours’ drive to the north — foments uprising, insurrection, whatever appellation you give a situation fraught with aggravation.
When the “Greenfield 101″ trickle back to Vermont, being short-timers and detainees, they will return way sooner than most of the other 95 percent of Vermont’s 2,100 inmates. They will be at home, at work and at play with you — me — our loved ones.
No sane citizen promotes coddling criminals. Only sociopaths condone or, worse yet, hail a riot. But in Greenfield, prisoners get a far more restrictive prison setting than the bulk of all other Vermont inmates — and know it. The question is not why there was a disturbance in Greenfield, but why it took so long to occur. Let’s fix this mess.
Permalink |
What a pleasant surprise, while looking for a link to the Free Press’ Sunday opinion page, to do a Google search for “Massachusetts prison riot” and find myself as a guest on Digger.
To paraphrase — liberally (but, hey, I see “liberal” as more of a badge of honor than a seven-letter epithet) — Sally Field’s 1984 acceptance at the Academy Awards: “I haven’t had an orthodox career, and I’ve wanted more than anything to have your respect. The first time I didn’t feel it, but this time I feel it, and I can’t deny the fact that … you dig me, right now, you dig me!”
Thank you, Anne Galloway, for all the good work that you (and all of you) do on this vibrant site. Maybe I can stay again as a guest? The mint left on the pillow during turn-down service was quite hospitable, I thought.
Permalink |
Sorry, Ann. I spelled your first name wrong in the original comment. Mea culpa.
Permalink |
My son spent some time in various jails in the northeast, pending trial. Without a doubt Greenfield was the worst. No-one cared, no services, lousy, lousy meds policy. He was in and out of there a couple of times and each time his mood and mental state took a turn for the worse. As soon as he was transferred to Devens or a similar place, he got better. This stuff matters.
Permalink |
Dear Milton:
I want to hear — need to hear — more. Will you please write to me: Ketchum@sover.net? If you include a phone number, I will immediately send my number by return E-mail. This will get us directly in touch quickly. Anything we discuss is confidential —- except for anything that you expressly want to see brought to the right people on an on-the-record basis.
I hope to hear from you. Gordon
Permalink |
Your readers might also like to know this is a ICE/HOMELAND SECURITY detention center. Their is also no guarantees you will get to visit. Its first come first served. Time in 2007 was limited to 15 mins. Have your IDS ready or you won’t be allowed in as well.Their is so much more I could tell you, but its hard to even write the things I saw. Just know one thing, the deportation of aliens is not what you think and we are the monsters now. Bush lied to us all.It was over crowded than, people not receiving their meds (my friend was being deported and was not given his medications for high blood pressure and heart meds).He was their waiting from Jan to March to be deported. Its heart wrenching so prepare yourselves. VT knows about this because he was brought their from VT.
Permalink |
What I wrote to Milton I say, too, to you: “I want to hear — need to hear — more. Will you please write to me: Ketchum@sover.net? If you include a phone number, I will immediately send my number by return E-mail. This will get us directly in touch quickly. Anything we discuss is confidential —- except for anything that you expressly want to see brought to the right people on an on-the-record basis.
I hope to hear from you. Gordon”
Permalink |
Gordon, Milton,
I can see your points. But as a taxpayer, I also know that K-12 local school boards face tough budget decisions. Vermont does not fund state colleges and CCV to the extent that other states do.
If we spend more money on prisons for better “situations” for the prisoners, we are in affect making the situation for law-abiding students and college students more difficult. College costs are ridiculously expensive, especially in Vermont. College students end up with a lot of debt.
Would the families of the prisoners be willing to collectively contribute (at least some) of the $357K (the savings for sending prisoners to Greenfield, MA) to the State of Vermont to cover the extra expense for prisons with better conditions or situations (recreation, space, etc)?
Rather than just asking the State of Vermont and taxpayers to spend more money, what about at least offering to share the costs for better situation for your family member in prison. Remember, we are in a recession.
Permalink |
The fact that the Corrections Department costs Vermont taxpayers more annually than we spend on higher education is a sin and a disgrace. It’s practically criminal (but if we decided that it was really criminal, we’d have to find even more prison beds for the culprits, right?
Your thoughts are cogent, your proposal intriguing. May I ask you, too, please to write to me: Ketchum@sover.net? If you include a phone number, I will immediately send my number by return E-mail. This will get us directly in touch quickly. Anything we discuss is confidential —- except for anything that you expressly want to see brought to the right people on an on-the-record basis.
I hope to hear from you. Gordon
Permalink |
Mr Pulcer
The cost of building, maintaining, and staffing prisons is a huge expense and policy makers should consider any and all reasonable ways to reduce those costs.
However, I do not think asking relatives of prisoners to pay is fair or necessary. First, there’s no reason to think relatives are any more responsible for the illegal behaviors than you or me. For some, perhaps; but what of family members who have no interaction with their criminal relatives? Why should they be assessed a special fee beyond what they already pay in taxes like the rest of us?
Second, I don’t think it’s appropriate to refer to the facilities discussed as “extras.” As noted, they serve a purpose and, presumably, should be part of any modern prison concerned not only with safety but with the physical and mental health of the prisoners.
Third, even if the families of criminals reflect the income diversity of the general population (unlikely), many families will not be able to contribute much (if anything) even if they were responsible or so inclined.
I suspect one answer to the problem is to be found in the statutes that require incarceration for too many non-violent crimes. Another is to improve support for those who re-enter society so they will not repeat their mistakes.
Permalink |
Mr. Hoffer,
You make very good points. But on the other hand, is it fair to ask parents and family of law abiding children to pay MORE for college tuition?
Vermont does not support higher education to the extent that other colleges do, in part I presume because of other expenses, including prisons and corrections dept.
Here is a current comparison of the Community College of Vermont (where I have taught) and Macomb Community College in Michigan (where I attended many years ago).
http://www.ccv.edu/tuition
http://www.macomb.edu/Current+Students/Student+Services/Payment+And+Student+Accounts/Tuition+and+Fees+2011-2012.htm
Community College of Vermont:
Fall ’11 – Summer ’12 courses:
In-state students – $ 214 per credit
Out-of-state students – $ 428 per credit
Macomb Community College (Michigan):
FALL 2011
Macomb County Resident (In-District) $84.00
Non-resident of Macomb County (Out-of-District) $128.00
Non-resident of Michigan (Out-of-State/Foreign) $167.00
Note that the “out of state/foreign” student tuition at Macomb is $46 less than the CCV “in-state” tuition!!!
Macomb has two large campuses (not just buildings). Macomb has a field-house for athletic activities. Macomb has a Performing Arts Center that rivals the Flynn Theater and Paramount Theater in Rutland.
The point, to use your “leaky boat” analogy, is that Vermont tax dollars are being diverted from Education to Corrections (including out-of-state prisons), given the high tuition rates for Vermont colleges.
If families are paying room and board in addition to college tuition (while they are away from home), I don’t think we should be afraid to ask families of prisoners to contribute something towards room and board (while they are away from home).
Permalink |
Mr. Pulcer
I share your concern with the state’s comparatively meager support for higher education. But I don’t think it’s the result of the Corrections budget. The state appropriation for higher education was low long before the Corrections budget began its steep rise.
What you’re advocating is a short step from those who would refuse to pay for public education because they have no kids in the system. Prisons (like higher ed) is a shared responsibility that should not be funded with something like user fees.
Moreover, I disagree with your comment about using money for prisons that could be used for higher ed. It’s not a zero sum game. It assumes there’s a fixed amount of money and that we can’t reduce Corrections expenditures. The state spends some money unwisely while limiting support for worthy investments like higher ed (a longer conversation).
In any case, I certainly agree that the state should increase spending for higher education.
Permalink |
In Vermont, it’s rare that someone goes to prison the first time they “stub their toe.” Many inmates are Frequent Flyers, a fact not usually mentioned by advocates. One way to avoid the harsh enviroment of prison is to OBEY THE LAW. Criminals make a choice.
Permalink |
My son had never been in trouble, never been arrested, absolutely no legal history, until the U.S. Marshalls showed up at his door as part of a “sting”. I am not saying he didn’t do a crime – he did, as best as I can tell. In general both the court and jail systems have treated him very well. The one exception was Greenfield.
I am saying Mr. Bellini that not all incarcerated people are career criminals. My son was a sophomore in college and is trying to continue his education so that when he gets out his remarkable mind can be beneficially engaged for himself and others.
Permalink |
Yes, Dave Bellini, as a Corrections Department employee (and leading official of the Vermont State Employees Association), you are no doubt familiar with the subject matter. I do not know to whom you are responding with the “stub their toe” quote; it was not in what I wrote. Yes, people should obey the law. Yes, people who do not obey the law have made a choice. By “frequent flyers,” I assume that you mean “recidivists” (because I am unaware of DOC giving away flights, hotel stays or other prizes to those who reside within its facilities).
All this notwithstanding, you do not address at all the main two issues that I address: 1) zero outdoor recreation in Greenfield; 2) no-contact visits in Greenfield. The “Greenfield 101″ — who were supposed to be pre-trial detainees, lower-level non-violent criminals, people in the “B-1″ category (jailed solely for lack of outside housing and people awaiting beds in a substance-abuse treatment program — would have these things back in Vermont.
I am unsure whether you speak only for yourself, for the VSEA or for both yourself and the VSEA. The recitation of cliches, however, does not (in my opinion) a cogent argument make.
If you wish to respond to me directly, I am at: ketchum@sover.net.
Regards,
Gordon
Permalink |
As to the suggestion that families help pay for “extras” – I’m not against that idea. Meds, however, should not be extras. You would think that a simple, inexpensive solution to a huge problem-the-waiting – like a BP or mood elevator – would be a no-brainer for the leadership of a challenged facility. But somewhere the system “broke down” and it would be in everyone’s best interest to fix it.
Permalink |
Doug, this is why I voted for you (thrice, if I recall) in the race for state auditor — and why you would have been so much better as auditor than He Who Is Named For a Fish. (If Jim Condos reads this, I really voted only once.)
You show both your smarts and your political acumen.
Say, Doug, do you know about CURE? (See http://www.curenational.org.)
Also, inasmuch as you and I are Facebook friends, perhaps you would please look at what I posted on my wall on July 19th (1:23 p.m)?
CURE Vermont needs brains — as well as hearts and souls — like yours. Feel free to post something there.
Gordon