Mass. correctional system needs to change. Stakeholders are watching.

Healey has an opportunity to address women’s incarceration

Kudos to the Globe for urging Governor Maura Healey to prioritize criminal justice and prison reform (“Healey’s chance to correct the corrections system,” Editorial, Jan. 8). As a sociologist working with formerly incarcerated women, I study the harsh challenges faced by this group, including high rates of poverty, homelessness, physical and mental illness, and childhood and domestic abuse. Prison exacerbates these problems.

Most of the approximately 175 women currently at MCI-Framingham could be released under existing statutes, including the Primary Caretakers Act; a law prohibiting civil commitment of women to prison; and medical parole. Until now, all of these tools have been grossly underutilized.

Healey has the power to address unnecessary and prolonged incarceration of women by appointing progressive administrators to the Department of Correction, selecting new Parole Board members with expertise in mental illness and other drivers of incarceration, and using her power to grant clemency.

The overwhelming majority of incarcerated women are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence. With proactive leadership by the governor, we can redirect the more than $235,000 spent per year to incarcerate a single woman at MCI-Framingham to fund secure housing, accessible mental health care, family support, and other services proven to reduce crime and nurture healthy communities.

Susan Sered

Newton

The writer is a professor in the department of sociology and criminal justice at Suffolk University, where she also works with the Women and Incarceration Project.

We need to prepare people now behind bars for their return to society

Thank you for the great editorial on the dramatic shortcomings of the Department of Correction. The data show the insufficient access to education and rehabilitation for incarcerated people as well as the continued use of forms of solitary confinement despite the 2018 criminal justice reform legislation.

Since most people will be released from prison and return to society, we need to prepare them to return ready to succeed. This improves public safety, saves taxpayer dollars, and keeps families intact. This is a necessary goal, and I hope Governor Maura Healy meant what she said about looking after all of our residents and that she will “move the ball forward” on corrections reform.

Mary Valerio

Clinton

The writer is a member of the Actual Justice Task Team of the Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ.

Decision to keep Baker’s pick for head of public safety does not bode well

Your editorial “Healey’s chance to correct the corrections system” did not talk about Governor Maura Healey’s announcement Friday that she would keep Terrence Reidy on as secretary of public safety, even though he has not made any of the changes to the Department of Correction mentioned in your editorial. Nor has he provided any accountability for a violent guard attack at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center in January 2020 reportedly on more than 100 incarcerated men who were not part of a group of inmates who had attacked three correctional officers.

The people of Massachusetts need to know why Healey is keeping Reidy instead of finding someone else to run the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. She should appoint someone who cares about those imprisoned as well as the guards of those incarcerated and who cares about those who police treat poorly or kill (many of them Black or brown) as well as about the police.

Lauren Gibbs

Cambridge

Take a close look, too, at county sheriffs — and their budgets

I welcome the Globe’s attention to the intransigence of the state Department of Correction. Let’s include the county sheriffs while we’re at it.

Sheriffs incarcerate thousands of people who have been sentenced for up to two and a half years or who are awaiting trial. Many of these people are simply too poor to post bail. Sheriffs operate with even less oversight than the DOC, have a history of ignoring mandatory reporting requirements, and some accept ethically dubious campaign donations.

Their term of office is six years and they often run unopposed, limiting public scrutiny and accountability. Sheriffs’ budgets keep getting bigger even as the number of people in their custody continues to drop.

Massachusetts is unusual because sheriffs operate at the county level but have no county government to answer to. One way to address the lingering problems with jails is for police and district attorneys to maintain the recent practice of declining to arrest and prosecute people for low-level crimes and technical violations of probation, thereby limiting the number of people exposed to the inherent harms of incarceration.

Rachel Roth

Arlington