Thursday, April 17, 2014
What was the state Legislature's incarceration policy when it became fiscally responsible for county jails? Similar to education, the Legislature usurped county control by promising funding, made it law and then failed in its fiscal commitment.
Inmates meet with visitors at the Cumberland County Jail. By creating a panel to study Maine’s unified jail system, the state is abdicating responsibility for policymaking, a reader says.
2013 File Photo/Derek Davis
Now they've created a committee to make credible their bandage methodology versus developing a long-term refurbishment program for our costly, arcane county incarceration system.
There is no long-range state-county incarceration policy; yet, without it, any tax revenues spent are just chaotically dispersed. Without it, there is no required coordination of governmental stakeholders or the benefits they supply (i.e., county governments, along with the state police, judiciary, educational, health and corrections systems).
If the state is to be in control, as citizens, we need the Legislature's long-range policy, one that at least considers and coordinates all areas of incarceration expenditures: capital, operations, maintenance, transportation and recidivism programs.
Additionally, the state should utilize advanced technology to lower costs and improve safety: more monitoring of inmates electronically, eliminating jail-to-court transportation for indictments through video proceedings, consolidating health and meal programs, improving educational training and degree opportunities and communicating with families through telecommunications, etc.
Moreover, from 30,000 feet, why do we need a full-service incarceration facility located in most of our 16 counties? We don't. Strategically located, three will do.
The Legislature should stop dithering and determine a county incarceration policy and a long-term, 20-year plan; anticipate the total required funding and resolve this issue rather than "kicking the can" and protecting turf -- again. Just saying.
State, city should restrict subsidy for revived ferry
Re: "Deal a big step in revival of Maine-Nova Scotia Ferry" (Sept. 8):
It would be nice to see ferry service like the Prince of Fundy from Nova Scotia to the northeastern USA. But the state of Maine or the city of Portland shouldn't need to subsidize much.
I felt the owners of the Scotia Prince played a little dirty at the end of their contract.
If I remember correctly, they tried to sue the city, saying they pulled out because Portland wasn't servicing the facility to their standards -- while they had scheduled the ship for overhaul in the previous year, and they had nothing ready to substitute for it, either.
Nova Scotia has more to gain than we do, and that is why they should pay more. I really don't oppose this -- I am for it. This would bring some good seasonal work here. I just think we need to be careful and not spend too much on this.
Biased source had no place in column on peace protest
I'm curious why in Bill Nemitz's column Sept. 1 ("Syrian images hang over peace protest") did he find it necessary to quote Bill Slavick and his ridiculous comment that Secretary of State John Kerry "is in Israel's back pocket"? Slavick's hatred for the state of Israel is well-known and well-documented throughout the years.
What I find amazing about Peace Action Maine is their stunning hypocrisy. Israel opens a lemonade stand in the West Bank, and they go ballistic. Syria gasses more than 1,400 of their own, and crickets.
They were only out Aug. 31 protesting against our government to not attack Syria. It had nothing to do with the chemical attack.
(Continued on page 2)