Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.


Who does Mr. Albushies condemn for hikes in defense spending?

To The Dalily Sun,

I have a few questions in response to Mr. Leon Albushies' recent letter expressing concerns over U.S. military spending.

Firstly, does Mr. Albushies condemn the president and/or the Congresses of the last six years for the 14 percent average annual increases in U.S. military/defense spending? Secondly, are U.S. military pensions part of the U.S. entitlements system, or part of the military/defense spending? Are these increases attributable to military spending part of the two cents in change that the president came into office promising and in fact delivered on?

Would Mr. Albushies like to see a Navy veteran president of a different political party assigned to the CVN-79 currently under construction?

Tim Sullivan


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 246

Our county attorney is not buying into the anti-recidivism model

To The Daily Sun,

With regard to the Belknap County jail, what a long, strange trip it's been. When the jail was allowed to deteriorate for four years under the leadership of three prior commissioners, the people of the county were told that it would cost $40 million dollars to build a replacement, and that an additional $20 million or so new correctional officers would be needed to staff it.

Over time, a new corrections model was identified in Sullivan County, which model demonstrated astounding success in reducing recidivism.

Under new leadership, Belknap County investigated the underpinnings of the Sullivan County model and hired the same consultant used there to guide our process. Another in a series of meetings will be held on Monday, June 1. Many of those with an interest in criminal justice will participate in this conference to help chart Belknap County's future.

It has been apparent for quite a while that Belknap's County Attorney does not accept the Sullivan County model as "best practice". When visiting their facility in Union, and later at a meeting of the jail superintendent, assistant county attorney, defense attorneys and others, it was most apparent that all of the people involved shared respect for one another and that all were dedicated to an anti-¬≠recidivism model. That model has seen those arrested for a new offense plummet from about 60 percent to less than 20 percent.

Belknap's County Attorney is elected and follows her own script in deciding county policy. She has consistently challenged the direction of county corrections in implementing, where appropriate, electronic home confinement and work release for those incarcerated. She has lost some of these challenges but "won" an alarming victory this week from Belknap Superior Court. This ruling negated a decision by the superintendent of the jail to allow a sentenced offender to work and to wear an electronic monitoring device. This device tracks not only physical location but can detect drug or alcohol use. While this defendant may continue to work, her address will be the county jail.

Giving a County Attorney veto power over decisions made by those charged with rehabilitation of prisoners flies in the face of RSA 619. This statute gives the jail superintendent the authority to appropriately give those sentenced the chance to work and to be supervised by electronic monitoring. If it is not honored by our legal system then I believe the expensive programming which Belknap County has been contemplating should not be provided.

Should Belknap County build a "soft" facility where the construction is geared not to maximum security but to engaging prisoners in constructive programming, building their work and personal skill sets and providing evidence based treatment or should we merely fix the existing jail and provide a separate pod for women?

We are coming close to making this decision and for that reason, while I disagree with the County Attorney and the Superior Court, I am glad to have the latest ruling before any more dollars are expended on the anti­recidivism model. That model does work, as has been amply demonstrated in Sullivan County, but it does not work without the shared commitment of all involved in its implementation.

Dick Burchell

Belknap County Commissioner

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 651