A burgeoning NIMBY consensus?

A BURGEONING NIMBY CONSENSUS?…. This seems to be an increasingly common sentiment.

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), the assistant majority leader, said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he would accept Guantanamo detainees in his home state as long as they were held in super-maximum prisons, where inmates are held 23 hours a day in small cells with slits for windows.

Moderator David Gregory asked: “Would you be OK with al Qaeda prisoners — those currently at Guantanamo Bay — in a prison in Illinois?”

Durbin responded: “Well, I’d be OK with it in a supermax facility, because we’ve never had an escape from one.”

Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) said the other day that if the government wants to build a supermax prison in his district, he’d be happy to have detainees sent to his area. This week, Carl Levin (D-Mich.) extended a similar offer, suggesting the construction of a new maximum-security in Michigan would help his state. (Former Michigan Gov. John Engler (R) raised the specter of a “Guantanamo North” in the U.P.)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told reporters Wednesday, “Yes, we have maximum security prisons in California eminently capable of holding these people as well, and from which people — trust me — do not escape.”

This seems like a sensible response for lawmakers to make when asked if they’d accept Gitmo detainees in their state/district. If there’s a maximum-security facility in their state/district, and corrections officers are going to keep the bad guy locked up for 23 hours a day, and even attempted escapes are impossible, of course officials should be willing to accept these prisoners. Why wouldn’t they?

That’s a rhetorical question, of course, but the answer is, because some politicians have been so craven on this issue, they can have a supermax and still oppose the idea.

Perhaps it’s time to introduce a new series of questions into the debate. Maybe lawmakers should be asked, “Would you be OK with convicted serial killers being held in a maximum-security prison in your state? How about rapists? Or child molesters?”

We can probably get to a point at which some cowardly politicians will oppose any dangerous criminals in their state.

Support Nonprofit Journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works—and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, I’ll make a donation