S*M*A*S*C*H - PRISON REFORM

Stewards

STEWARDS. Who would they be? How could "we" trust them? How could they
compete? How would they be measured? How would they get rid of problem
transitionees? Would Stewards abuse transitionees? Why would Stewards’
facilities be any different from prisons?

1. Who would become stewards? The role of Steward requires a special breed
of entrepreneur, psychologist, cheerleader, coach, accountant, and more.
Stewards must amalgamate such a mixture of talents, recruit inmates, and
guarantee their performances. A heady score sheet, but because the other
skills can be purchased, Stewards will most likely be from a diverse
background of slums, scams and sinners. To survive, the Steward must keep
his Transitioners working and growing. By trading, shifting, and adjusting
his stable, the Steward can tap a huge resource in cash flow, but every
penny of the Transitioners’ savings must be periodically accounted to the
State.

2. Despite their seedy backgrounds, Stewards will far more trustworthy than
the current managers of inmates: Wardens are never punished or demoted when
there are problems; never financially deprived when there are escapes, drugs
found within a prison, or funds embezzled. Stewards would pay for all of
such violations. Prisons are immune from outside investigation: Stewards
would be wide-open to police, fire, and drug inquiries.

3. Competition among Stewards is implicit, but cooperation as well, since
trading and understanding the needs and advantages of fellow Stewards would
lead to managing their resources: Transitioners. Competition for benefits,
accommodations, savings, climate, quality of food, clothing, and shelter–to
name but a few-- would grow among Stewards, and provide Transitioners
choice: the essence of freedom.

4. Discarding unwanted Transitioners would be similar to trading
professional athletes: the needs of each team are determined within, not by
a State entity: one team’s discard is another’s treasure.

5. Abuse. Nothing is more predictable in human enterprise: there will always
be abuse, in any system. The real goal is to make the abuse easily detected
and quickly corrected. In a bureaucracy, the presumption is that the
bureaucrat is not capable of abuse: he is not self-motivated, but only in
his loyalty to the goals of the agency. S*M*A*S*C*H* presumes greed is a
stronger motivator–exceeded only by fear: the fear that the wealth feeding
his greed can be withdrawn at the slightest error. Physical abuse of
Transitioners would be difficult; financial abuse, very remote, but
emotional abuse possible. Within a competitive, Transitional environment,
abuse such as practiced by Bobby Knight and George Steinbrenner may be seen
as virtuous.

6. Facilities at S*M*A*S*C*H* centers would be radically different from
prisons. Although locked-down at night and at will, Transitioners would
enjoy limited liberty, but even more limited freedom. Fire and safety codes
would be lower, and workers compensation awards limited. Fewer guards, more
accountability, and Transitiones would be imbued with a sense of belonging:
that the future of each is controlled, in part, by the whole. In prison:
total dependence; in S*M*A*S*C*H* interdependence.

HOME