Washblog

Carr claims that his treatment-vs-prosecution policies have reduced the average daily occupancy from ~400 to ~200. Carr says that Seattle has long anticipated the expiration of the contract with King County, so he's been working very hard to reduce the number bookings. That in turn will reduce the size of any future jail.

Carr stated that many jails in urban jurisdictions nationwide are turning away people. (Is "inmates" the proper term for jail residents?)

Carr said his nightmare scenario would be to have people turned away in Seattle. The example he gave was the mandatory arrest in domestic violence incidents and how important it was to hold those people over night. (Having some personal experience in this matter, I agree completely.)

Apparently it's common practice for other jurisdictions to dump people in our jail/system. I didn't quite follow how that works.

Experts have told Seattle that it'll take 7 years to build a new jail. So even if we do manage to renegotiate with King County before our contract expires in 2013, it's a smart move to have a contingency plan.

Chuck Sloane participated in the followup sidebar with Tom Carr. Sloane works for the King County Ombudsman and has experience with mental health and mediation. Sloane and Carr had a very meaty conversation about the King County Jail's issues. What I gleaned is that the design of KC's Jail is very old school, having both high operation costs and leading to a lot of complaints. Carr envisions have a much more modern jail, which is better for the inmates, has less operating costs, and leads to more successful outcomes.

Which leads to the second point...

A modern treatment vs punishment jail requires much more space. Carr estimates 7 acres. Given the givens, such a facility can't feasibly be located within the city core. Hence the search for an outlying location. (Carr lives in the 34th LD and understands the uproar caused by the locals over the possible choice of their neighborhood for the new jail.)

Lastly, my impression of Tom Carr was very positive. He describes himself as a "public safety Democrat". I'm sure we'd disagree on specifics, but I freely admit that I'm pretty close to Carr's school of thought. I've worked and lived downtown. I hate being hassled by panhandlers, seeing public drunkenness, and so forth.

I'd characterize my philosophy as "stern", "tough love", and "shared responsibility". We should always help people who need help. Everyone deserves a second chance. And I strongly prefer treatment and prevention over ineffective, expensive punitive measures. But there are times when individuals step out of bounds and they rights and the needs of society must be protected.

I think Carr gets that too. During his speech, he stated that many of the people he sees need treatment, not incarceration. That the root cause of much lawlessness are mental health (thank you Ronald Reagan for making our mentally ill homeless!), addiction, and dysfunction.

(Well. That's about it. I'm working over the weekend and I've run out steam. If I remember something else, I'll update.)