Louisiana Voice

The news that the state wants to transfer about two dozen teenagers now incarcerated in the Bridge City facility for youths to the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola probably hasn’t penetrated north Louisiana. Bridge City is in the New Orleans area (Jefferson Parish) after all, and it’s more of a regional story than one of general statewide interest.

But that doesn’t mitigate the seriousness of Gov. Edwards’s decision to house juveniles at a prison for hardened criminals. The argument could be made that the ones being transferred are already candidates for a lifetime of recidivism.

But while that argument may well have merit, the question remains: Should we be sending juveniles to an adult facility that is the nation’s largest maximum-security prison and which has the reputation as one of the worst prisons in America?

That prospect prompted Tulane University psychiatrist and professor Dr. Monica Stevens to tell U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick that such a move would be “unprecedented,” and that she “couldn’t ethically sign off on this.”

The decision by Edwards to move the youths was born of desperation after six juveniles escaped from Bridge City in July of this year. It was just the latest of several escapes and riots at the facility and the decision was made despite a federal law that prohibits youths from being incarcerated within sight of sound of adults.

The problems at Bridge City are not new. In fact, legislators have had at least six years – even after they were finished grandstanding and pontificating – to address problems at the facility and yet those problems remain.

In May 2016, the SENATE AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, just weeks after its lovefest with then-State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson, tore into Department of Juvenile Justice Director Mary Livers. Leading the assault was committee chairperson Karen Carter Peterson. The committee spewed such vitriol that Livers ultimately retired. The irony of that was Livers had testified to the senators about the problems of high turnover at Bridge City.

Even as Livers attempted to relate the problems at Bridge City, she was repeatedly interrupted by Peterson, who seemed to think the hearing was all about her and who made certain that everyone in attendance was aware that she was an attorney.

Along with the 30 vacancies at Bridge City, Livers noted that her agency’s budget had been cut by 40 percent, a cut implemented by Bobby Jindal who never saw a social program he liked.

“The youth there have lots of problems or they wouldn’t be in a facility like Bridge City,” Livers said. “The problems are historic. When you have more than 100 kids in a facility, you have problems. Today Bridge City is at 136 youth. That’s too many kids in one place, not enough space. It’s a recipe for problems. We have a difficult time keeping people.”

Peterson asked why there was such a high turnover—a question Livers had already addressed in describing the working conditions at Bridge City. But she gamely tried again. “There is a variety of reasons,” she said. “Most say the job was not what they thought it would be. They don’t like being called into service and working all kinds of hours because of vacancies.”

“That goes back to you,” Peterson snapped. “It’s not enough to take responsibility. You’ve been there a long time. You say you take responsibility but nothing gets done.” This from the person who chaired the State Democratic Party into near-oblivion.

Looking back, it’s surprising that Peterson was able to stay for the full 80-minute duration of the hearing, what with her ongoing destruction of the State Democratic Party, her preparations for a future run (unsuccessful) for Congress, and her furtive gambling habit.

But never mind all that. It was her moment to shine, along with fellow senators Jean-Paul Morrell, Wesley Biship, and Jim Fannin. There was an abundance of bluster and finger-wagging in that hearing (good for TV soundbites).

Typically, after they were finished with their chest-thumping and public humiliation of a well-meaning but overwhelmed civil servant and the TV camera crews had packed up their equipment and left, the issue of Bridge City was, for the lawmakers, over. There were no more political points to be scored, so why waste time if the legislators didn’t have anything to gain?

In fact, it was a lose-lose situation, so even as Livers was calling it a career because of the lack of support for her agency, the political talking heads could go home, satisfied in the knowledge they’d found a scapegoat in Livers and driven her from office.

Problem solved.

So, here we are, six years of legislative inaction later. And the problems at Bridge City are, if anything, worse than before.

That can mean only one thing: time for another legislative committee meeting.