Closing arguments I
On the evening of Jan. 8, breaking news disrupted evening meals, communities and affected families. That breaking news, however incomplete, sent a shock wave through both SCI-Cresson and SCI-Greensburg. Only because of the dedication, training and professionalism of those facilities' staff, no incidents of uprising or violence were reported. Whoever felt the need to provide a minute bit of information to media outlets, for whatever reason, did the employees and those incarcerated no favors.
Stability, safety and security are paramount at every correctional institution. That being said, stability, safety and security are obtained by a diverse group of men and women from various backgrounds who provide around-the-clock care, custody and control to those fulfilling what the courts have deemed their obligations for crimes committed against society.
Society wants the Legislature and the courts to be tough on crime, but does not know how to pay for it.
Bravo to those on duty that night of the breaking news. You are professionals who did not compromise operations of your facilities under a shock wave unleashed by someone who pretended to have a news story that was incomplete. Shame on them.
The writer is a labor foreman at SCI-Cresson.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.