Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Detention Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Formerly incarcerated residents and advocates urge Jackson County to adopt a 'Bill of Rights' for detainees
Summary
At a public hearing, three people with lived experience and a reentry advocate urged the Jackson County Legislature to adopt an ordinance (Ordinance 6,077) creating standards for treatment of people detained at the county detention center, arguing it is both a moral duty and a cost-saving measure. Supporters said the measure would increase transparency and reduce liability.
A public hearing on Ordinance 6,077 drew three witnesses with lived experience and a reentry advocate who urged the Jackson County Legislature to establish a formal bill of rights for people held at the Jackson County Detention Center.
"I think it's pertinent that we recognize the moral and fiscal imperative of treating people that are detained in our Jackson County Detention Center with dignity and respect," said Tyler Collins, who identified himself as one of the authors of the proposal and said the initiative is titled "Justice with Dignity." Maurice Harris, who said he spent a significant time incarcerated, said he "did experience mistreatment" and urged the legislature to adopt clear, humane standards.
Joel Hanlon, a reentry advocate who said his son has been housed at the facility for two years, told the legislature the proposal would not be merely symbolic but would establish operational guardrails: "a set of guardrails that ensures clear and timely communication, access to legal and support resources, humane and consistent conditions, transparency and process and timelines, accountability and how people are treated." Hanlon urged the body to support the measure to improve public safety and reduce the county's exposure to litigation.
Chair closed the public hearing after testimony and reminded the public that questions are not permitted during a hearing; witnesses and authors were invited to make themselves available to legislators afterward. The hearing provided legislators direct accounts from those with lived experience and a specific draft to consider; no vote on the ordinance occurred during the session.
