| Subject: And my full reply to him... |
Author:
Ned Depew
| [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:10:19 02/06/08 Wed
In reply to:
Ned Depew
's message, "Commissioner Brian Fischer's response..." on 12:07:51 02/06/08 Wed
... a shortened version of which was sent to the R-S on February 6, after they informed me that the full version exceeded their word limit.
To the Editors
Register-Star Newspaper
Warren Street
Hudson, NY
Sirs:
I am disappointed that Corrections Commissioner Brian Fischer found my letter about the proposed closing of the HCF “offensive, uncalled for and inaccurate.” Although I can’t answer him on the first issue - what he finds “offensive” is a matter of his personal sensibilities - I can’t allow his other assertions to pass unchallenged.
First, he declares that “Working in corrections is not a dead-end job for anyone.” I would agree that for all those who have - as he has - risen to the level of Commissioner, that is true.
But for the vast majority of the rank and file Officers my characterization stands. An entering CO has by and large the same responsibilities and duties that he or she will maintain throughout their career until disability, resignation, death or retirement ends them, as long as they remain on the floor. Although a very few - like Commissioner Fischer - will move up the bureaucratic ladder, for most opportunities for advancement are matters of pay-grade, title, and slight changes in command responsibility. The acquired training and skills are largely non-transferable outside the Prison Industry. That is, as I said, the “very definition of a dead end job.”
The Commissioner then writes:”Each person who chooses to work in corrections contributes to the safety of one another -- and of the inmates we are responsible for.” Again, this contradicts the facts. In terms of violent behavior, New York prisons are far from safe. The rates of violent behavior are far higher than anywhere else in our society. Guards put themselves at daily risk, and they know it - which is a contributing factor to their sense of stress.
Fischer adds: “Suggesting that staff should leave and get "real productive" jobs outside of corrections fails to understand the nature of the workforce and our employees' commitment to doing what many others are afraid to do.” Without presenting some factual basis these contentions, we can’t accept them. Psychological studies of guards and prisons document the profound toll such environments take on all who spend much time there.
The Commissioner accuses me of saying that “nothing good comes out of prison.” But that is a straw-man. I accept that the function of segregating dangerous, violent criminals (a small minority of the prison population) is a necessary one. I conceded that “‘if our prisons really did a good job of "rehabilitating" inmates, then you might be able to make an argument that some good does come out of them.”
The Commissioner makes such an argument, but unfortunately, the facts from his own Department don’t bear him out. Inmate populations, as he points out, are down, but not because “rehabilitation” has reduced them. Recidivism rates are nearly as high as ever. Diverting offenders around the Corrections Department, through alternative sentencing, Drug Court , etc, is what is reducing the population.
Which is not to deny the hard-working and dedicated men and women who labor in prisons their credit. In a failed system, they struggle courageously with a “thankless, boring, brutalizing job” (again, frank studies based on interviews with prison personell bear this description out). That they are able to succeed in keeping some prisoners safe and helping turn their lives around is a well-deserved satisfaction. That they are so rarely able to do so is the source of a built-in frustration of their job, that contributes to their stress.
I have great sympathy for the prison employees. Not only for the disruption of their lives that “downsizing” always entails, but also for the special difficulties of their work. I have nothing but respect for those who are able to hang onto their humanity and empathy in this taxing (and, as I said, dead-end) situation. I also have sympathy for those who are overwhelmed by the job, for whom the depersonalization, authoritarian structures and emotional withdrawal of the job seep into their personal lives.
Has the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections never read any of the many studies that have been published about the toll being a prison guard takes on men and women? Does he deny the high rates of stress-related disorders and disability among this group of workers? This an undeniable fact, which the Department’s own record keeping bears out.
The Commissioner’s final argument - that because there is a clear need for some prisons and COs, every prison and CO is “necessary’ - is specious on the face of it.
No one is arguing that all prisons and all COs are superfluous. Only that we have a duty to capitalize on whatever gains we are able to make, to relieve workers of thankless, onerous jobs (with due regard for their needs) and to reduce the burden on taxpayers of unnecessary expense.
As a responsible citizen, I think my reasoned and factually-supported opinion as expressed in my prior letter is “called-for.” Democratic government certainly “calls for” The People to express their opinions on matters of public policy. I have answered above for the accuracy of my statements. I invite others to independently check these facts.
As far as any “offense” I may have caused, it was never my intent to insult anyone. Several people have said they were hurt by my describing CO work as a “dead end job” But that phrase didn’t imply any pejorative judgment on my part, as some have mistakenly inferred. As I pointed out above, it is descriptive of an occupation in which opportunities for meaningful advancement are limited, learned skills are non-tranferable and the responsibilities and routine of the job change very little over the course of a career.
I presented are the facts of the case as I see them. I apologize to anyone who took my remarks as a personal affront and respectfully request that they re-examine the substance of my argument.
Yours,
Ned Depew
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] |
|
Feedback: 