The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

Building bigger jail after bigger jail is not the solution to crime and it might even make things worse. Adding extra capacity to a jail should be a last resort, because those empty cells will reduce the pressure for judges and legislators to consider cost-effective and rehabilitative alternative sentences for people who pose no threat to the community.

Rather than build now, the prudent thing to do is to force Sheriff Ashe to ''make do'' for a few years with the 240 cells already under construction.

Before lawmakers grant Ashe's request, they should remember that 56 cells will cost $2.4 million a year to operate. That money will no longer be available to fund schools, drug treatment or other far more beneficial programs.

Bringing more state investment to western Massachusetts is a good goal, but dumping it into jails is the last thing we can afford.

Peter Wagner
Northampton

To the editor:

Eighty-five percent of women incarcerated in Massachusetts are in jail for crimes relating to addiction. On April 17, the San Diego Union-Tribune, reported on Proposition 36, enacted by Californians in 2000. Proposition 36 allows people convicted of first- and second-time drug possession the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment instead of incarceration.

Two studies find that taxpayers are saving nearly $2.50 for every dollar invested in the program. In the first year alone, Proposition 36 saved state and local government $173 million.

We are paying for the Chicopee jail to incarcerate women, including those from Hampshire County. We must ask ourselves and our elected officials how building more and bigger jails came to be the answer to drug addiction, lack of housing, poor education and no or low-paying jobs.

Please contact our state representatives and senators and ask them to take the lead in demanding real alternatives to incarceration.

Lois Ahrens
Northampton