In the past week, the BDN has featured two discussions of the state’s – and in particular, Washington County’s – corrections future. Last Thursday, the BDN published an OpEd piece (“Where Inmates Can Grow Free,” Aug. 9, A9) that summarized some of the negative consequences of a nation bent on imprisoning offenders (high cost, poor release preparation, recidivism) and urged creation of an organic ‘corrections farm.’ Two days later, the BDN reported on the initial meeting of an exploratory committee formed between members of the state Department of Corrections and Washington County Jail, county and development officials – at the governor’s behest – to consider construction of a joint county jail-state prison facility. (“State, Washington County officials talk jail,” Aug. 11-12, C1) Although ostensibly addressing some of the same problems – crime and criminal offenders, and what to do with them – the two discussions might well have taken place on different planets. Both groups seem to have decided on a solution before identifying the precise nature of the problem.

As Nancy Oden’s opinion piece recites, “Our idea is to create a 100-acre-plus organic farm where inmates grow their own food … learn organic farming and gardening, carpentry, plumbing, electricity using solar and wind, building with sustainable materials, … and use these skills … in their communities.” On the other hand, as the state and Washington County officials collectively envisioned, they would “put their heads together” by the end of October to present plans for a joint jail-prison facility to the Legislature, including calculations for “…gross square footage, site selection and cost of the project, …[including] annual operational costs” whereupon – as sate Sen. Kevin Raye, R-Perry, opined – “the Legislature would rally around the idea.”

As Ralph Nichols, a DOC state jail inspector, advises us, the well-known prison building funding formula suggests that a 250 cell facility at $115,000/cell costs about 28 million dollars – although, of course, a project cost can’t be announced because none of this has been decided. Both ideas, as published and reported, seem rather hastily conceived and rushing toward their contrary conclusions. Both also seem bound to fail. Fortunately, Nancy Oden’s group likely doesn’t have the economic, political, and organizational clout to effectuate her plan. Unfortunately, state and county officials likely do have the power to enact their alternative vision of Maine’s corrections future.

The problem with each of the approaches is quite different. The organic farm idea – while admirably opting for a nonincarceration alternative – doesn’t appear to have benefited from consultation with community corrections experts. As a consequence, the proposal seems long on idealism and short on careful analysis of the economic, corrections and political factors that would each need to be in place. Any operation that fundamentally rests on a foundation of lofty generalities and good intentions seems unlikely to succeed. Would you be willing to bet on the organic prison farm’s future as it’s presently portrayed?

On the other hand, the official plan that is emerging seems bound to fail Maine because it is addressing the wrong problem. The combined jail-prison strategy seems determined to solve the needs of existing institutions (the Washington County jail and the Downeast Correctional Facility) and vested interest groups (existing corrections employees) but doesn’t spend much energy addressing the needs of the statewide offender population or the public good. Given that imprisonment is widely understood to be remarkably ineffective (except at warehousing the dangerous), this seems an especially bothersome shortcoming. The throw-away reference in the BDN article to the fact that “[inmate prison] programming options also were discussed…” does little to alleviate this concern since the “programs” mentioned (substance abuse or reintegration programs for sex offenders) appear to be only under discussion for inside, not outside, the imprisonment box. Regrettably, this is one more example of the ‘same old, same old.’

The two BDN pieces, taken together, present the danger of instilling in the public mind the idea that these two alternatives exhaust the potential correctional choices available. Nothing could be further from the truth. Maine, somewhat immune until recently to the imprisonment binge that has gripped the nation over the last 30 years, should take a deep breath, exhale, and consider other alternatives. Even in 2007, $28 million is a lot of money.

Maine should reconsider its sentencing alternatives and spend some of that money on practicable, nonprison control and program options. Effective community programs cost 10 times less than prison and have been shown to be equally – or in some cases, more – successful with nonviolent offenders.

Like the cart before the horse, Maine needs to first think about what it wants to – and can – achieve, at what price, before it starts rebuilding ‘bigger and better’ jails and prisons.

Robert C. Hauhart, J.D., Ph.D., is associate professor of Criminal Justice at Saint Martin’s University, Lacey, Wash. He has also taught at University of Maine at Machias since 2002.