There is a world of difference, says Mike McCormack, between the role of a police officer and that of a sheriff. And between himself and his challenger.
“He’s about putting them behind bars. The sheriff’s job is about preparing them to go back into the community. They are totally different jobs,” said Mr. McCormack.
His point, if not already obvious, is that experience in one job does not equate to qualification for the other. And Mr. McCormack is running on experience
“Qualifications and experience,” he said. “The experience of running a 45-person department, compared with five or six people at the state police barracks.
“The experience of administering a $3.5 million budget. I don’t know what experience he has in administering a budget, but I have to go to Boston and fight for money, then administer and account for it.
“This department is very eclectic. We don’t just run the jail, we serve all the processes in the county. We run the communications center, so when you dial 911 it’s a sheriff’s employee who answers the phone and dispatches the emergency services. We run a community corrections program, education programs.
“There’s a huge base of knowledge you need. Does he have that?” Mr. McCormack asked.
But the contest is not just about experience, but approach to the job.
Mr. McCormack argues you have to look at a very broad picture.
“My philosophy is that you have to try to prepare them from the day they come in for the day they leave the facility.
“So we look at educational levels, wellness — meaning physical and mental well-being — their vocational levels, job skills, life skills, housing and family issues. And wherever there’s a deficiency we try to address it. We have programs for all those areas.
“I’m looking at the fact that the people who go to jail, unless they’re going off to state prison, are not really bad people. They’ve made bad choices and bad decisions, 80 per cent of them because they’re under the influence of alcohol or something else.
“I figured someone needed to bring a program to the Island, to help people who have substance abuse issues and also offend.
“So I created a diversionary program from jail by creating a community corrections center, a program for people who have substance abuse issues, who are diverted from jail into treatment.
“They perform community service work and get help like [adult] education, substance abuse counseling and life skills and vocational training. It’s been running about five years,” he said.
There is an average of about 20 people a day in the program.
“We’ve got a pretty good track record,” Mr. McCormack said.
In a statewide study of the effectiveness of such programs, he said, his came up “pretty well.”
There was a recidivism rate of 47 per cent here, compared with an average of 52.6 per cent and extremes of 32.4 and 75 per cent.
“I’m very proud of it,” Mr. McCormack said.
There are other programs too, like Project Lifesaver, in which Alzheimer’s or other dementia suffers can be fitted with a tracking bracelet.
“So if they wander, we can locate them, within an average of 20 to 30 minutes. We have about a half dozen on the program right now.
“Then we have the DARE [Drug Awareness Resistance Education] programs in all the elementary schools, which has now expanded into a ropes challenge course out by the airport.
“It helps build teamwork, self-esteem, self-confidence, problem solving skills. We hope to instill the confidence to make the right choices, not necessarily what their peer group is telling them to do.”
He has just secured funding to relocate and renovate the communications center to a new state-of-the art facility..
“See, jail is only one portion of the job,” he said.
Mr. McCormack is aware of the Maciel platform, and happy to respond.
As to off-Island prisoners being transferred here, he says, most of those people are Islanders originally, who committed crimes elsewhere, and wanted to come back here to serve their time.
“One of the keys to success is the family connection. So if they or their family request they be transferred back here and we can do that, we do,” he said.
In a few cases, a couple of which he concedes have become high profile, other prisoners have transferred here for protection.
“We’ve had a couple of high-profile individuals here. One was a priest accused of having online pornography. He served his time here, and shortly after [another priest] was killed up in Walpole.
“Had that priest been put in a safer facility, perhaps he’d still be alive.
“It’s not a thing we do a lot. Of over 35 inmates, we might have five people who were not sentenced here,” he said.
And he denied that resulted in the importation of criminals.
“We never accept any maximum security prisoners, only accept medium-status prisoners from the state. Once they reach minimum security status they are transferred back to the state. So those people are not coming into our community; they’re going back where they came from.”
As to the Maciel promise to fight for jail facilities for women, Mr. McCormack agrees with it.
“From day one when I became sheriff in 1999, I . . . pointed out we do not have adequate facilities for females. It’s something I have been trumpeting ever since. Of course it’s fundamentally unfair.
“But there is no capital funding in Massachusetts to build new jail cells.”
But it is his opponent’s talk about tougher discipline and strip-searching work release prisoners which gets him most fired up.
Prisoners trying to smuggle in contraband is a constant problem everywhere, he said. But strip-searching day work prisoners would only serve to undermine the trust that has been built up as the prisoner nears the point of re-entry to society.
“There’s a certain amount of dignity that has to be reinstilled back into the individual for them to interact the way we want with the public. Take that away from them and they will be embittered as they walk out the door,” he said.
“Strip-searching is demeaning, would break trust and in most cases is not necessary. It is an extremely invasive tool which should only be used when there is reasonable suspicion.”
Comments (2)
Comments
Comment policy »