At what human cost?

In regard to the editorial in the Bangor Daily News, Sept. 27 concerning “Correcting Corrections.” The paper states that a better plan “may” have been adopted.

The Department of Corrections plan “may” be better.

The prisons left “may” run better filled to overflowing.

The prisons “may” run better with less staff.

There “may” not be anyone get sick, and die in his cell because there isn’t enough staff to get him out.

There “may” not be an altercation between prisoners that escalates into a riot because there was insufficient staff to cover that place at that time.

There “may” not be a case where a staff member becomes incapacitated, alone on a post that should have two, and no one can get to him, because he is the one that must open the door.

There “may” not be an officer beaten, or worse, because there was no one to help.

Someone “may” not have to die before it is realized that when you pare, or cut, too deep, there is the risk of drawing blood.

The plan is probably the best that can be arranged within the constraints of the Productivity Task Force. However, the Department of Corrections is not in the car-building business. It is in the business of controlling and incarcerating hardened criminals, many of whom are very dangerous. It is a personnel-intensive business, something that appears to be lost on the minds of the task force.

Let’s call a spade a sapde. First, the Productivity Task Force has nothing to do with productivity. Its sole purpose is to cut, slash and downsize until the bottom line is met, regardless of the facts or the ability of a department to do the job when they are through.

Second, it is politically driven, by appointees who are told by the man who appointed them, to tell other appointees to make cuts. There is an obvious “or else” that is not mentioned.

So we have a plan, and it will work after a fashion. Maybe not well, but it will work; the remaining staff will try very hard to make it work. Perhaps even in the short term it may save money. But at what human cost in disruption, confusion, and possible blood?

Are any dollar savings justified if there is even one life lost? Willis B. Kinney Jr. Thomaston