A DC Superior Court judge and Mayor Fenty are at odds regarding the number of inmates that can be held in the DC jail. Judge Wright has ordered the city to limit the number of inmates that can be held; the city asserts that the judge doesn't have the authority to set such a limit.
From the perspective of Mayor Fenty and the DC government, discuss the issue, impacts, goal(s) and messaging strategy to support your goals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502268.html?sub=AR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
As an advocate for Mayor Fenty and the D.C. government, I would argue that Wright is overstepping his boundaries. He does not have authority over the D.C. government and should not mandate D.C.’s spending.
The issue in this case is less about the D.C. jail cap of 2,164, and more about power and jurisdiction. The number of inmates doesn’t matter; the ruling determines whether D.C. Superior Court has oversight of the D.C. government. The case’s ruling will have a significant impact on the power struggle between the two parties. It will set a precedent for future proceedings.
I believe Mayor Fenty’s goal should be to focus on changing the public’s perception on the situation. By making the public think that the situation is about money rather than politics, Fenty will gain public backing. He should focus on safety, education and where the money is being spent.
Messages to the public:
1) I would rather have criminals in the D.C. jail than on the same streets as our families.
2) We are continuing to make improvements in the D.C. jail, but I want to first concentrate on improving the conditions of our schools.
3) The D.C. Superior Court is not responsible for the safety and security of our community. I am. By enforcing the cap, they are endangering the lives of D.C. citizens.
There are both immediate and long-term issues facing Mayor Fenty and the DC government regarding the overpopulated prison population. The immediate issues are whether the judge has the authority to hold the mayor in contempt of court for failing to place a cap on the prison’s inmate population, and whether the cap that was proposed is sufficient and appropriate. The long-term issues facing Mayor Fenty and the DC government include violence in the prison, and the overall incarceration issue. The prison rights advocates are fairly vocal, and have been making an issue of this for years.
If those are the issues, then what are the impacts? Mayor Fenty can be found in contempt of court and sanctions could be imposed on him or his government; bad publicity could arise from activists and vocal critics; voter backlash; city council backlash; and even in more extreme cases, death – if the population just keeps rising with prison violence. The impending issue is the time it will take out of Mayor Fenty’s schedule fighting this battle in court, the money it will cost, and the media attention that will be soaked up because of it.
The goals of Mayor Fenty and the DC government is to convince the public and (more importantly here) the court that the judge misinterpreted the law, that they are following the law as it was written, and that they (the government) already set there own VOLUNTARY cap.
The message and media strategy should target various audiences, including vocal activists, behind the scenes law makers and council members, and influential opinion makers. There is not much they can do other than fight one battle in traditional court, appealing the decision, and another in the court of public opinion. Media strategy should include the DC Examiner, The Post, Times, urban and local radio, morning radio shows, one-on-one meetings with city council members, and influential law groups or opinion makers who can fight for the Mayor’s position. The message should be that the DC government is handling the issue (setting their own voluntary cap); that they are taking steps to control incarceration, and crime, and propose legislation to that effect (if this isn’t being done, it should – they should get ahead of the issue); they should be saying that while they are taking steps to make changes, they are being hampered by a judge who misinterpreted the law. If they personally don’t agree with the cap that the outside consultant proposed they should attack that, and explain why (officials from the prison, or others should say why it isn’t sufficient).
Mayor Fenty and the DC government simply want to keep the costs as low as possible for operating the jail, while maintaining law and order in the city.
Judge Wright thinks the jail is overcrowded and wants to use what he perceives as his authority to limit the number of inmates at the jail.
This issue could impact the Mayor's office and DC government negatively with regard to the proposed cap on the number of inmates the city had chosen to voluntarily uphold. By increasing the maximum allowable number of inmates by more than 1,000 over (3198) an outside consultant's estimate of what should be permitted (2164), the District is creating several negative images for itself.
1. They are demonstrating that their approach to crime is to keep the option open to simply lock away more people instead of dealing with the core reasons the crimes are being committed.
2. They don't care what an outside consultant or Judge Wright thinks about how many people the jail should hold.
3. They have the ultimate jurisdiction over the jail, the costs associated with it and the number of inmates.
The goal of DC and Mayor Fenty is to fight off the Judge's attempt to limit the number of inmates.
To persuade the necessary stakeholders that the number of inmates is right, the District could use messages that they are:
1. Tough on crime
2. Can't afford to expand or build a new jail.
Alternatively, if the city could come up with the funding, the simple solution to this issue would be for it to either expand on the jail or build a new one.
Mayor Fenty is right to demand control over the city's spending, but his office needs to be more reasonable and follow guidance of the outside consultant. The consultant's cap may have been a conservative estimate, but the DC government's decision to increase that number by over 1000 seems to simply dismiss the expert opinion. Compromising--say 500 over the consultant's number--would certainly take some of the heat off the mayor.
The mayor's office needs to be careful in how it handles this situation. If there is another incident in the prison, the judge isn't the one the voters will hold accountable. In fact, the judge and the outside consultant will be seen as defending human rights, while the mayor will have to defend against accusations of mismanagement. To head off such a problem, Mayor Fenty should devise an alternate short-term solution that will satisfy the judge.
Possible short-term solutions include: 1) setting a temporary cap until an expansion or addition can be built onto the prison--this will demonstrate that the city intends to follow the law when it's possible 2) expand programs that reduce the number of prisoners (through rehabilitation facilities, etc.) 3) seek outside assistance from neighboring states where prisoners could be housed temporarily
Without appearing proactive to lower the prison population, the mayor will continue to be on the wrong side of this issue. Continuing to fight the judges decision and not seek a compromise will only make the situation worse.
From the perspective of Mayor Fenty and the DC government, the primary issue is to deal with the judge’s ruling and avoid having the mayor held in contempt. Clearly the best way to do both is to appeal the ruling.
For the past several years, DC has tried to fight its image as a high crime and dangerous city. To an outsider this ruling will just reinforce that image if people think DC can only incarcerate a set number of people. The ruling also affects residents who may now have to pay increased taxes to build a new jail facility.
The DC government needs to consider options that include reducing its projected cap on the jail, increased funding for a new facility, discussions with Maryland and Virginia for assistance in housing inmates, and appeals to the national government for additional funding for a new jail.
In order for the DC government to be successful with this issue, they will need to appear on right side of the issue. The government needs to appeal to local leaders and opinion makers with a message of increased public safety and the need for continued reductions in crime. They also need to show that the judge’s ruling has tied the cities hands in fighting crime and that the court is trying to run the city.
The issue here is what to do about offenders and their rights. The goal of Mayor Fenty here is to build his reputation as a crime fighter. Since he has taken over as Mayor the crime rate has become worse. Last summer the city was in a crime emergency, which this summer it was able to avoid through aggressive policing. Fenty's message needs to be, I am going to do whatever it takes to fight crime. These people are criminals, and are not getting the Four Seasons hotel to stay in. Jail is not supposed to be comfortable. The Mayor needs to challenge the judge as not caring about crime or the welfare of the city and its inhabitants. Doing so will build the Mayor's credibility and build his public support. This impact is going to be low and some agreement will get made that is going to cause this story to disappear to the back pages of the Washington Post. This is an excellent opportunity for the Mayor and he should use it.
I am with Judge on this one. I did some looking and the DC Superior Court was established in 1970 by Congress with general jurisdiction over the DC area. So there is no question that Judge Wright is within his authority to hold the Mayor in contempt during proceedings in his courtroom.
The issue for Mayor Fenty is crime in DC. Regardless of what the final outcome of this conflict ends up being, it is going to get everyone thinking about crime in DC.
The impact will be lots of questions about what the Mayor plans on doing about crime, other than incarcerating and then releasing offenders. Already, the mayor has positioned himself as pro-enforcement only. He needs to back track a little and communicate a new strategy.
His goals should be 1.)finding a compromise with Judge Wright, both on the cap level and a timeline with which to meet it; 2.)reaching out to the community and start to understand how people generally feel about the city's crime; 3.)understanding the unique situational aspects of crime in DC; 4.)by the end of the timeline for inplementing the cap compromise, have a comprehensive strategy for addressing, and reducing crime.
Messages:
1.) I agree that the state of our prison is in need of re-evaluation but in order to meet the population cap of 2,164 immediately would mean placing a large burden on local polices' jails, as well as releasing inmates before serving their full sentence in order to make room. This is not an acceptable solution.
2.) DC is known as a dangerous town, but we are also a rich town. Rich in history, and culture. We are also a leader and it is time for us to lead the country in finding better ways to make our city safer. That's why I have established a commission to study the root causes of crime in DC and make recommendations to fix them. It will no longer be the policy of the District of Columbia that nothing can be done about crime except to arrest and incarcerate offenders. From today on we will be leading the country in finding ways to prevent crime.
And he definitely needs to keep from being found in contempt of court and put in prison. But in the event that he is, when he is released, and assuming he does not resign, he can use his incarceration to explain a change in attitude about the population cap. That after experience what it is like staying in the Southeast Prison, he knows that conditions need to improve.
If I were advocating for Mayor Fenty, I would say that the judge is assuming duties outside of his jurisdiction. He should not have a direct voice in the cities spending, but it's a difficult situation because as a judge, I think he has a duty to be concerned with the overall state of the legal system, which includes prisons.
However, a problem arises because setting a cap potentially hampers the city's (Mayor's) ability to fight crime. So the issue, coming from the Mayor's office, should be presented to the public as who should have the power to fight crime, the judge or the mayor. I think the issue is not so much about the inmate capacity of the jail (if it really was that big of a problem, I would hope they would just expand/build a new prision) but more about whose jurisdiction this probelm falls under.
If I were to develop a message for the Mayor's argument, I would say that the Wright is more concerned with following the advice of an outside consultant rather than being concerned with the safety of the D.C. residents. If there's only a few issues that resonate across the board, crime is one of them. I think it's fairly safe to say that people are more concerned with criminals attacking innocents in D.C. than criminals attacking criminals in jail. I'm not advocating that the Mayor not address the problem of overcrowded jails, but that he has to do it on terms based on what he and his advisors believe is right, rather than what an outside consultant thinks.
The issue here is that an activist judge is attempting to set public policy. This is the responsibility of elected officials. The Mayor and the DC Council need to be firm and demonstrate leadership. They cannot allow judicial interference to dictate Washington DC's priorities.
The impact of the judge's ruling is serious. Mayor Fenty cannot allow this situation to stand. From his own political perspective, it is not good politics to look weak in the eyes of his constituents or to allow criminals to walk the streets of Washington, DC because a judge believes the jails have too many inmates. Even the perception or the fear of this happening is bad politics for the Mayor and for members of council. In the short term, Mayor Fenty must remain firm and strong, no matter the cost. He needs to reassure residents that he is on top of this situation.
The long term strategy is to appeal the ruling, build public support for the proposed cap for inmates and work with stakeholders, the community and other government officials to develop a comprehensive strategy to this issue.
The Mayor needs an aggressive communications strategy. The Mayor needs to get out and meet residents. He needs to reassure them. Mayor Fenty also needs to put the city bureaucracy on high alert to make certain that all questions are answered, to make certain there is a constant flow of information and communication.
Reassuring the public in the short term while working towards a long term solution to this situation is the best course of action.
I disagree with the approach that the city's attorneys have taken in this case. They have chosen to challenge the jurisdiction of the Superior Court, which does not appear to be overstepping its boundaries in this case. Because it seems apparent that the Court has the authority to force compliance with the law, the best chance that Mayor Fenty and the DC government would have would be to work toward changing the original 2004 law that established to cap to begin with. The argument that they must make is that the cap was established without an accompanying plan for how to handle the inevitable overflow of prisoners once the cap is reached.
To be clear, Judge Wright is not taking an activist role here - he is not seeking to penalize the Mayor and the District because of any personal belief in the necessity of inmate caps but rather because the caps are mandated by the very laws that he has sworn to uphold. With that in mind, the most logical strategy would be to change the law that is being enforced in this case. Mayor Fenty and those within the DC government who support him on this issue should work to amend the original law to allow for a gradual lowering of the cap, to be accompanied by the expansion of prison facilities over an extended timetable.
The amazing part of this whole argument for me is the fact that the current prison population is still below the proposed cap, which means that the District is only guilty of refusing to stick to the proposed cap should it become necessary.
This has become a battle for control between Mayor Fenty/the DC government and Wright and the court. Mayor Fenty is not only fighting for this particular issue, but if he loses, then it will become clear to the public that the control of their city does not rest in the hands of the Mayor, but in the judiciary.
If Mayor Fenty can reel in public support with a message campaign regarding safety and concern, he stands a fighting chance.
If criminals aren't in prison then where are they....on the streets where our children play...
I worry about our community and would prefer to focus on that than a power struggle with Judge Wright.
These are the messages that Mayor Fenty needs to use to shape the public's opinion of this issue.
His goal is not only to relieve the prison system of this cap, but to show the public that the Mayor's job is not irrelevant.
Post a Comment