Feb 21, 2016 4 min read

A clear line of communication is important to resolve any conflict, but there appear to be a few crossed wires when it comes to the complaints from the union representing the state prison’s corrections officers about Greene County’s district attorney.

The issue stems from District Attorney Marjorie Fox’s decision not to charge an inmate at State Correctional Institution-Greene after he stabbed a corrections officer nearly a dozen times with a shank.

The guard was treated at a hospital near Waynesburg, but still has not returned to work following the Nov. 18 attack that left him with a severe laceration on the back of his head.

State police investigated the incident and turned their findings over to Fox for consideration. It was revealed last week no charges would be filed against the inmate, who is serving a life sentence for murder.

Investigators have not identified the corrections officer or the inmate involved in the attack.

Jason Bloom of the Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association, which represents the corrections officers, said the injured guard told him Wednesday he was briefed recently and told it’s Fox’s “policy” not to charge inmates serving life sentences who commit crimes in the maximum security state prison in Greene County.

That angered the union members, who vehemently disagreed with the decision. But both sides have strong arguments regarding this particular case.

On one hand, the corrections officers feel as though they’re being treated like second-class citizens since any assault or misconduct by a state prisoner serving a life sentence in Greene County will go unpunished. Bloom said he thinks Fox’s decision has “blatantly painted a bull’s-eye on the corrections officers in the prison.”

As for Fox, although she declined to comment on her reasons for not pursuing charges in the case, the answer is clear. Is it worth the time and taxpayer money to prosecute someone who will never leave a state prison because of a life sentence? Furthermore, would these inmates view a trip to the county courthouse more as a reward, since they’ll be leaving the confines of the prison, albeit only briefly, for hearings and an eventual trial?

There are two sides to this dilemma and both have compelling viewpoints.

But neither of them will get any closer to resolution because the union and district attorney have declined to meet to discuss their differences. Bloom said it’s the district attorney’s responsibility to contact them and explain her decision, while Fox said she does not think it’s appropriate to discuss why she does or does not file charges.

In this case, the onus to arrange a meeting should be on the union.

If union officials and the corrections officers are truly concerned by what they have termed as Fox’s “policy” not to prosecute prisoners serving life sentences, then they should contact the district attorney’s office and attempt to arrange a meeting. Bloom admitted last week they might be open to taking that step, but wasn’t sure if his members would be inclined to sit down for a meeting.

If the union and its members feel as strongly as they apparently do, it should be a priority to arrange a meeting. Whether Fox accepts that invitation is another question.

But while the district attorney doesn’t necessarily need to explain to the union why she has this particular procedure, it would be the right move for both sides to at least hear their grievances to have a better understanding about why they think the corrections officers now have a “bull’s-eye” on their backs.