The price for our 'tough on crime' philosophy is higher than we thought

Why did Anthony Pierce have to die the way he did? Why did it take the Delaware prison system seven months to get an MRI of a growth on the side of his head that was the size of a grapefruit?

Anthony Pierce was 21. He was serving 14 months in prison for violating a parole connected to a burglary charge. As reported in The News Journal's series on Delaware's prisons this week, the tumor afflicting Anthony Pierce pulled the skin around his face and closed his right eye. He was in crippling pain for months. But, according to a lawsuit, the medical staff didn't order tests that would have shown he had cancer.

Finally, the growth penetrated his skull and, when he was dying, the prison system released him. He died at home. That way he wasn't a prison statistic.

It's a horrifying story. The saddest part is that it's not the only one.

Why?

Why did these things have to happen this way in Delaware in the 21st century?

Why do we allow diseases to go untreated in our prisons? Why do we allow AIDS to spread wildly, and potential suicides to be ignored?

Probably because we're tough guys.

Delaware and the rest of the nation have been in a law-and-order mood for about 20 years. Conventional wisdom holds that any office seeker who even hints at being soft on crime and criminals is bound to go down in defeat.

Besides, the feeling goes, it gets the criminals off the street. Society can wash its hands of them once they are behind bars.

State officials defend their practices by pointing out that these guys are low-lifes who did bad things, take drugs, have risky sex and are in poor health anyway. Then there's the money factor. Delaware, like other states, outsources medical care in order to save money.

But tough guy doesn't automatically equal smart guy.

We can save a buck here and there, but most of these inmates will be out on the street some day. Then what happens. Who pays their medical bills then?

Who pays when other diseases spread or the ex-inmate is too sick to work or goes right back on drugs? Who pays when ex-inmates spread AIDS in their neighborhoods? We may save pennies now, but is it worth the death of innocent victims later?

Other states have had problems with outsourcing medical care. But why doesn't Delaware monitor its contractor? Who is making sure the medical practices are what they are supposed to be?

Delaware has tripped itself on the false dichotomy of hard-on-crime vs. soft-on-crime. Why can't we be smart about it? Why don't we take a closer look at who we're putting in prison? Are mandatory minimum sentences cutting down on crime? Or just needlessly crowding prisons? Do drug users have to be in jail with thugs?

Finally, what does this grotesque neglect say about us, the supposed civilized people outside the walls? Voters may not have much sympathy for criminals, but are they really the kind of people who will let a 21-year-old endlessly suffer from a brain tumor or who will stand by while bacteria eats a 47-year-old's flesh?

To allow this to go on is both immoral and stupid.

As a community, as a state, and as a government, we are better than this.

Delaware's prison system needs a thorough examination, from sentencing to security to health care. It doesn't need another blue-ribbon commission that will poke around and then find things are just spiffy. We cannot afford to let the people who are being investigated do the investigating.

An outsider needs to take a hard look and to lay out the problem honestly and in public.

Solutions then need to come from the Delaware medical community, judges, legislators and the governor.

If you don't think something needs to be done take a look at that picture of Anthony Pierce again. Then look at the MRI of the tumor.

Can we do better? Or is this the Delaware way?