Print  email 

Inmate labor program needs oversight

Our views

• Published September 26, 2007

• Comments (0)

That's key because it's clear from the Supreme Court case that the Department of Corrections did not have a good track record when it came to overseeing the inmate labor program and ensuring that there is n o competitive advantage to firms using inmate labor.

An excellent case

Sen. Jim Hargrove, D-Hoquiam, author of the constitutional amendment, makes an excellent case when he says that working inmates will:

n Benefit themselves by learning a job skill while incarcerated.

n Benefit crime victims because a portion of their salary is automatically used for restitution and crime victim compensation.

n Benefit taxpayers because working inmates pay for a portion of their room and board.

n Benefit the criminal justice system because a part of their wage is used to repay their court costs.

n Benefit society because studies have shown that inmates with job skills are less likely to commit another crime once released.

By supporting SJR 8212 voters are trusting that the Department of Corrections will enforce the law to ensure that there is no unfair advantage to companies operating inside prisons. The Supreme Court record showed that 37 of the 58 inmates working for MicroJet were murderers. While some will be released some day, many others will never be released from prison. That shoots a hole in Sen. Hargrove's argument about rehabilitation.

Nonetheless, with proper oversight from Corrections and assigning appropriate inmates to the tasks, this program can work.

We offer our endorsement with one caveat. We encourage State Auditor Brian Sonntag to schedule a performance audit for the inmate work program after a couple of years of operation to ensure it's operating as intended and that the Department of Corrections and the Correctional Industries Board are providing proper oversight.

Vote for SJR 8212.