Action Deferred on Jail Issue

Back to Timeline
  • January 6, 1938
  • Bristol Herald Courier
  • 4

Sullivan County’s Jail Problem

With the advent of cold weather many of the citizens of this fair city and surrounding country have taken advantage of potent spirits to keep the interior warm. Such was the fact demonstrated by the local police court docket this morning. A total of $323.50 has been assessed in fines yesterday and today. with most of the fines on charges of intoxication. Out of a total of 15 fines imposed, 12 were for either driving while drunk, possessing intoxicants, or transporting liquor. Aside from those lodged in the local jail by city officers, 1 county officers donated several charges for one night stays. However, most of the county charges were taken to Blountville. It is reported that at one time, during the past weekend, 25 men and women were lodged in the hoosegow. Someone wise-cracked that police headquarters should have hung out a sign reading, “Standing Room Only.”

No one in Sullivan County can doubt that the county badly needs a larger and modernly-equipped jail. The need has been stressed by Grand Jury after Grand Jury in reports to the Circuit Court. It long has been recognized by the County Court, which finally, several months ago, named a special committee to study the jail situation and make recommendations. This committee now has recommended the construction of a new jail designed to accommodate immediately 150 prisoners, and ultimately 200 prisoners. But action on this recommendation has been postponed by the County Court until its April term. Pointing out that the special committee had met on three different occasions and arrived at the conclusion that a new jail was necessary, Judge Bandy proposed that the court go on record as approving the construction of a building of permanent character with proper equipment, to cost not more than $100,000 and, as required by State statute, place the issue before the people in a referendum on the date of the county primary in April. As already said, action was deferred, Some of the Magistrates seem opposed to any expenditure for jail improvements, much less the issuance of $100,000 in bonds, the estimated cost of the jail recommended by the special committee. These Magistrates protested in effect that there should be no further increase in the county’s indebtedness for any purpose - that the burden which the taxpayers of the county are i carrying already is heavy enough. They predicted that if a proposal to issue $100,000 or even $50,000 in bonds for a new jail is submitted to a referendum it will be defeated. ‘Meanwhile, the county jail at Blountville - must continue to house more than twice as many prisoners as it was built to accommodate. It Is notoriously overcrowded, making necessary the herding together of first offenders, petty violators and hardened criminals. Not only is the jail much too small, but its equipment is inadequate and out of date, and conditions in the institution naturally are unsanitary, As a place for the confinement of wrongdoers it poorly serves the purpose and is reproach to the county. Since the population of the county is increasing, it is to be expected that the jail population will increase. How is the problem of housing this population, already too serious to be dismissed with a shrug of the shoulder, to be met? It can only be met by providing a larger and more modern institution in which to confine the county’s lawbreakers. Unfortunately, we can not have public improvements without paying for them. When they are as sorely needed as an adequate jail is needed in Sullivan County, we should accept that fact and assume the obligation.
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.