Rell wants to close minimum security prison
As expected, lame-duck Governor Rell announced plans today to close the almost-out-the-door Webster Correctional Institution (hey, news sites, look! It’s possible to link to websites besides your own!) for a savings of a whopping $3.4 million a year.
Actually, I have to be honest. I’m pretty ambivalent about this whole thing. It’s a low-level prison and per the reports would require the relocation of 220 inmates. That’s not a whole lot. So by itself it’s not a bad idea to close Webster. The question really is whether there is room at other facilities to house these inmates. Less space + more inmates = overcrowding. Overcrowding = bad idea. Despite the Governor trumpeting the “drop” in prison population from the record high of February 2008 (which, let us not forget, was her own fault), the fact is that CT’s prisons are still woefully overcrowded. 18,000 plus inmates are packed like sardines into a system that was built for 15,000. They’re still sleeping in the gym, they’re still sleeping on floors and there are still far too many per cell.
I have another idea: if you want to close the prison, fine. But instead of shoving them into an already full elevator, why not release the low-risk offenders? CT now has a full-time parole board (which they claim is working efficiently, but let’s remember this is still a government organization), so why not release the one that have no probable risk factors. There always will be the crazy ones that commit crimes that are unforeseeable. There’s no way to account for that or to correct for it. Sometimes, shit happens.
What do you folks feel? Closing the prison a good idea? Bad? Just want to hate on Rell?
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on December 1, 2009 at 8:28 pm, and is filed under ct legal news, prison overcrowding. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |


about 2 years ago
$3.4 million? That’s a one-time savings. It’s chump change when you consider she could have saved $4 million PER YEAR if she just hadn’t vetoed that abolition bill.
about 2 years ago
Actually, I think the savings are estimated to be $3.4 million per year. But add the two together and you get almost $8 million a year!