I see near the end you indicated that the DOP would be focused on care and minimizing incarceration/recidivism. I feel like this is worth stating even more strongly. I assume the law creating the DOP would explicitly state this mission? My experience with local politicians has been that they often take the easy route of stoking public fear and pushing for more punishment, in spite of all the evidence that this does not actually increase public safety. I would be wary of a DOP being captured by such local bad actors.
Also, Baltimore struggles with the same issue of the ACA, but for housing. Recent law requires rental units to be inspected and certified before being available for rent, but landlords can hire private inspectors who are incentivized to pass properties so that they get more business in the future, leading to rubber stamping and very little oversight.
Great point and I 100% agree. The DOP requires a constitution upon formation which dictates laws in the spirit of the mission (which I think directly refers to your valid concern, something to expand on in much more detail should the idea gain any traction). A founding constitution or charter that makes the department's mission of decarceration, social reintegration, and care non-negotiable and judicially enforceable.
It also needs to function at not just the local political level but through the occupational levels regarding the humans in action within prisons (counselors, advisors, HR etc). This aspect means that instead of 'inspections,' every now and then, you would have real people with interests opposite of the DOC 'inspecting' prison conditions 24/7. Of course, at some level corruption is a human inevitability but local citizens and townsfolk elected to a board designated and legally bound to provisions which enable the ethos of the DOP should ideally have more interest in reducing crime and recidivism in their own city (and would be paid and democratically appointed to do just that) than a federal employee whose income is tied to the success of the prison itself.
I do understand incentive structure concerns and am willing to continue working these policy ideas out until a real separation of powers appears.
Absolutely. Those inside should not be reduced to calling family (if they can afford it) to contact local news stations to report atrocities. It’s ridiculous.
I see near the end you indicated that the DOP would be focused on care and minimizing incarceration/recidivism. I feel like this is worth stating even more strongly. I assume the law creating the DOP would explicitly state this mission? My experience with local politicians has been that they often take the easy route of stoking public fear and pushing for more punishment, in spite of all the evidence that this does not actually increase public safety. I would be wary of a DOP being captured by such local bad actors.
Also, Baltimore struggles with the same issue of the ACA, but for housing. Recent law requires rental units to be inspected and certified before being available for rent, but landlords can hire private inspectors who are incentivized to pass properties so that they get more business in the future, leading to rubber stamping and very little oversight.
Great point and I 100% agree. The DOP requires a constitution upon formation which dictates laws in the spirit of the mission (which I think directly refers to your valid concern, something to expand on in much more detail should the idea gain any traction). A founding constitution or charter that makes the department's mission of decarceration, social reintegration, and care non-negotiable and judicially enforceable.
It also needs to function at not just the local political level but through the occupational levels regarding the humans in action within prisons (counselors, advisors, HR etc). This aspect means that instead of 'inspections,' every now and then, you would have real people with interests opposite of the DOC 'inspecting' prison conditions 24/7. Of course, at some level corruption is a human inevitability but local citizens and townsfolk elected to a board designated and legally bound to provisions which enable the ethos of the DOP should ideally have more interest in reducing crime and recidivism in their own city (and would be paid and democratically appointed to do just that) than a federal employee whose income is tied to the success of the prison itself.
I do understand incentive structure concerns and am willing to continue working these policy ideas out until a real separation of powers appears.
And for God sake, provide actual food products for those in residence.
Absolutely. Those inside should not be reduced to calling family (if they can afford it) to contact local news stations to report atrocities. It’s ridiculous.