Click here to subscribe today or Login.
For a moment, think like a “devil’s advocate.” Actually, it doesn’t take much effort on this one. You can just think like most people, provided you detach the topic from politics, and that the move in question is valid.
Shouldn’t we be happy when, rather than announcing the construction of a new prison, we hear of plans to close not one but two?
With the United States bearing the dubious distinction of highest incarceration rate in the world — more than 700 prisoners for every 100,000 people — and the explosive growth of prison populations in the last several decades, it seems that someone saying “Hey, we can reduce the number of prisons” is good news.
Presumably, closing prisons means we have fewer criminals in need of incarceration. It means spending less money on the problem after the fact, potentially freeing up more for prevention before the fact.
And it means those who live near the mothballed facility get to shout “Not In My Back Yard!” as a celebration, rather than as a protest.
Yet the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ announcement that two prisons will be closed was met not with cheers but with anger.
Why?
Well, Sen. Lisa Baker, R-Lehman Township, may have given the most level-headed and clearest answer among politicians voicing shock and dismay at Friday’s announcement.
“The governor unfortunately chose to approach this matter in a secretive way that disrespects the precepts of open government and public trust,” Baker said. “The administration needs to hold public hearings and seek community input before making any final decisions.”
Other local lawmakers were less tactful. Sen. John Yudichak, D-Nanticoke, was “outraged” and accused Gov. Tom Wolf, a fellow Democrat, of using prison cuts as bargaining chip in the upcoming budget negotiations.
Rep. Gerald Mullery, D-Plymouth Township, agreed, saying he was “really insulted” and that “the potential closure is not about cost savings, but about strong-arming legislators into voting for his upcoming budget and I won’t be intimidated.”
Considering — as noted — that legitimately closing prisons is a good thing, some of the reactions feel over the top. But then, Wolf and the DOC really did seem to unveil the plan to close two prisons — a list of five institutions potentially on the chopping block was provided — without any public input, and with budget-sensitive timing.
Most egregiously, Wolf and the DOC decreed that the decision on which prisons get shuttered will be made Jan. 26. In this regard, Yudichak’s response was not over the top, and in fact hit the proverbial nail on the head:
“The madness of this decision is that in 20 days, they will close two prisons without public input and without clear information.”
Both sides need to step back and take a breath.
For the lawmakers, repeat this mantra: Being able to legitimately close prisons is good.
For Wolf and the DOC: Twenty days is too little time for this to get the public airing desperately needed to gain public support.