Editorial: Court should create a process to evaluate cost, design concerns over jail
By Staff Editorial
Source: The Times-Picayune | Nola.com
August 4, 2023
Local officials and criminal justice reformers have been fighting over the future of the Orleans Parish jail for so long that it’s tempting to just wish those in charge would get on with it and create a permanent place to provide mental and general health care for inmates.
It’s been a decade since the city signed a federal consent decree designed to upgrade health care and other standards in the local jail. And it’s been seven years since a federal judge overseeing the case ordered the sheriff’s office and the city, which have an uncomfortable shared responsibility for the facility, to address the fact that a new, post-Katrina jail then under construction did not include space for treating people with mental health needs.
In recent years, U.S. Magistrate Michael North has pushed both the city and the sheriff to break ground on a new, 89-bed facility known as “Phase III,” a separate building designed to provide general medical as well as mental health services to incarcerated persons.
North, as magistrate, has conducted most of the hearings on Phase III and advises U.S. District Judge Lance Africk, who is presiding over the case. Africk has adopted all of North’s most significant recommendations, particularly those relating to Phase III and the need to get moving on the project.
Phase III has been planned since 2017, when the court-appointed compliance director came up with the idea, and the city, then-Sheriff Marlin Gusman and the plaintiffs (all inmates at the time) agreed to it.
But, that did not end the debate over the jail’s future — especially as regards its capacity.
In 2019, a year after taking office, Mayor LaToya Cantrell came out against Phase III as planned and asked the court to allow a retrofit of an existing building instead. Sheriff Susan Hutson, who took office in 2022, has similarly asked the court to reverse, or at least revisit, its order to build the new facility. Quite a few criminal justice reformers agree.
At issue are Phase III’s design and its cost to the city — not just construction costs, which have ballooned from $40 million to $109 million, but also future operating costs.
Phase III opponents say it’s unnecessarily large and far too expensive. They argue that retrofitting the Temporary Detention Center would cost just $14 million and accomplish the same goals.
They also say Phase III’s latest design — a “panopticon,” or circular, floor plan — has already been abandoned elsewhere and discredited by incarceration and mental health experts because it gives not just guards but also other inmates a direct view into each cell. Such a design, they say, is counterproductive for patients who feel they’re being constantly watched. They add that proposed double-occupancy cells could endanger vulnerable inmates.
However, North and Africk have noted that the plaintiffs in the original civil rights lawsuit continue to support the original agreement signed by the city. That may impair Phase III opponents’ legal ability to demand changes. Still, the opponents have raised valid concerns, particularly as relates to the design element, that should not be dismissed even though it’s late in the game.
“Such a review is necessary to ensure the safety and security of those in custody and the effective use of City funds,” BGR argued.
We think that’s the right approach, and the most practical. North recently invited an expert who supports the advocates’ view of Phase III to present his concerns at an Aug. 18 status conference, but he added that Phase III “will not be delayed in any respect” by efforts to kill the project.
Like North and Africk, we don’t want to see any more delays in getting this important project started.
At the same time, the questions raised by Phase III critics are too important to brush aside in a rush to completion. The taxpayers of New Orleans deserve to know that a project of this scope has been fully vetted on its efficacy, as well as its legal merits.
Fair Use Notice
This site occasionally reprints copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues and to highlight the accomplishments of our affiliates. We believe this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is available without profit. For more information go to: US CODE: Title 17,107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.