Why, Precisely?
Sounds counter-productive, actually. The Federal Government is looking to cut costs at the same time that it is incurring greater costs. It's that old story of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Don't we all do it? Except that when government does it, it can have far-reaching consequences. In this instance it's cutting back a program that has real value, not only for prison inmates but for the prison system, a program that is acknowledged as valuable in the very community where prison farms exist.
Canadians who indulge in illegal acts, held to account for their crimes against society pay their dues by being confined to prison. Usually sentenced to prison stays commensurate with the crimes they've committed. For a whole lot of people, particularly those accused and found guilty of white-collar, and not violent crimes, that time of incarceration represents a hell on Earth. Having the option of being out in a farm owned by the corrections service, doing healthy manual labour can be a life-saving plus.
Penitentiary-operated farms produce dairy and egg operations. The Frontenac farm in Kingston, Ontario was able to supply 14 correctional institutions with their products, at no outside cost. Surplus eggs were delivered to the local food bank. A huge benefit was available to prison farm workers and the surrounding community through an agricultural green space, through interaction with local farm supply companies.
The prisoners who worked on those farms will be bereft of the fresh-air experience, the pleasure in growing green foodstuffs, in animal husbandry. But the correctional services decided that farm work did not reflect the kind of job opportunities available to discharged prisoners. And that other types of job training would be preferentially useful. The savings in the Kingston farm closure will amount to $4-million.
The proposed new facilities to house greater numbers of inmates in a government 'get-tough-on-crime' initiative, and the expansion of existing facilities to house more inmates in existing facilities will be extremely costly. Shaving $4-million off this kind of program is penny wise and pound foolish. There are losses involved that transcend the obvious 'saving'.
That's a shame, actually. And a whole lot of people think that way, in fact. Doesn't appear to have been a well-thought-out decision. It doesn't rate, for example, with shutting down lighthouse operations due to mechanization and electronics that are capable of producing the same results.
That was a heritage issue, where people were sad to see a beloved symbol go. This is more than a symbol, it is a practical use of space, opportunity and manpower and the intangibles of humane alternatives.
Canadians who indulge in illegal acts, held to account for their crimes against society pay their dues by being confined to prison. Usually sentenced to prison stays commensurate with the crimes they've committed. For a whole lot of people, particularly those accused and found guilty of white-collar, and not violent crimes, that time of incarceration represents a hell on Earth. Having the option of being out in a farm owned by the corrections service, doing healthy manual labour can be a life-saving plus.
Penitentiary-operated farms produce dairy and egg operations. The Frontenac farm in Kingston, Ontario was able to supply 14 correctional institutions with their products, at no outside cost. Surplus eggs were delivered to the local food bank. A huge benefit was available to prison farm workers and the surrounding community through an agricultural green space, through interaction with local farm supply companies.
The prisoners who worked on those farms will be bereft of the fresh-air experience, the pleasure in growing green foodstuffs, in animal husbandry. But the correctional services decided that farm work did not reflect the kind of job opportunities available to discharged prisoners. And that other types of job training would be preferentially useful. The savings in the Kingston farm closure will amount to $4-million.
The proposed new facilities to house greater numbers of inmates in a government 'get-tough-on-crime' initiative, and the expansion of existing facilities to house more inmates in existing facilities will be extremely costly. Shaving $4-million off this kind of program is penny wise and pound foolish. There are losses involved that transcend the obvious 'saving'.
That's a shame, actually. And a whole lot of people think that way, in fact. Doesn't appear to have been a well-thought-out decision. It doesn't rate, for example, with shutting down lighthouse operations due to mechanization and electronics that are capable of producing the same results.
That was a heritage issue, where people were sad to see a beloved symbol go. This is more than a symbol, it is a practical use of space, opportunity and manpower and the intangibles of humane alternatives.
Labels: Canada, Politics of Convenience, Security
posted by Pieface | 6:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home