Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

By DONALD MOTTERN | Staff Writer

I’d like to begin my thoughts by making what I hope is not a controversial statement—that we should not execute any and all people convicted of a felony in this country. I, like most, think that for most crimes this might prove to be a slight overcorrection.

There’s a reason that we don’t simply execute those convicted of crimes and instead sentence them to a length of incarceration. We do so out of the human hope that, for most individuals, felons may do their time and then be reintroduced into society once their debt to that society has been paid. To make that process worthwhile, work to reintroduce an inmate and reverse the tendencies brought about by institutionalization can be just as important as the rehabilitation for the initial crime done in the first place.

We all know that the effort to reduce recidivism requires a lot more than a bus ticket and a reminder to obey the law. Citable evidence and historic data have proven that transitional facilities can offer a bridge back into society, complete with job training, therapy and advancement that help former inmates reenter society and construct responsible citizens.

Most of us understand the theory and agree that recidivism should be decreased wherever possible. Most of us agree that rehabilitating prisoners is better than locking them in a hole and supporting them on the American tax dollar until their dying breath. But, few wish to acknowledge the attached hypocrisy—that with every one of these facilities comes a metaphorical fight to the death by members of the community to avoid such centers from happening.

I’m reminded of a quote from the late and great American philosopher and prophesier George Carlin, who once said,

“People don’t want any type of social help anywhere near them. Just try to open up a halfway house, try to open up a rehab center for drugs or alcohol, try to build a home for some people who want to work their way into the community and people say ‘Not in my backyard!’ People don’t want anything near them, especially if it might help someone else.”

Carlin identified this hypocrisy as yet another identifier of “The great American spirit of generosity” and I’m largely inclined to agree.

When it comes to putting one of these facilities in our own community, we suddenly develop a mindset that these people are on their own, and we forget that both our religious and civic responsibilities call for us to support such measures.

I also want it stated that the facility that was proposed in Wilsonville, or the so called “Convicted felon inmate camp” as I’ve often heard it referred to, was meant to hold individuals that are well on their way to court-mandated release and are individuals that have been approved by a stringent protocol. As proposed and in common practice, reentry facilities are never meant to include actively hardened dangers to society.

They are meant to serve as a site for those approaching or who have been released. They are a place for those people to work their way back into a world that is staged against their re-entry. It is no secret that upon release felons have difficulty finding housing, employment and support, which are among the most required elements to prevent crime recidivism.

Wilsonville prides itself as being a small, caring, close and Christian community. I can’t imagine a place better suited to look after and guide the peaceful reintegration of people who might be their own relatives and surely are someone else’s.

However, those in the Harpersville-Vincent zoning beat are now set to vote on a measure that would allow the county to have zoning rights in what is an unincorporated area. Should that be done, it will limit everyone’s rights in the zoning beat to do what they want with their own land. All just to prevent one proposed project.

Even the people opposed to the new facility reference how the original efforts at the Wilsonville flea market—which worked as a reentry facility—operated for years with no noteworthy instances of negative developments. I don’t understand how an official facility, with proper funding and staffing, would not be able to operate with that same level of success.

This is all not to say that I support Breakaway Pointe as was proposed specifically. During public discussion, enough comments and details were brought forth about its organizers and profit-based approach that have led me to doubt their suitability.

But, in the grand scheme of things, that was never the primary reason people opposed its implementation.

Let’s not kid ourselves, if we genuinely believe in our national system of rehabilitative justice, we need to support these facilities. We have to be ready to face them, not just in theory but in our communities. Imagine if we treated these facilities like the essential public service they are, rather than a pariah of urban planning.