You have nearly 20 years in Corrections BUT the difference is both you and I are well aware what goes on behind those walls. It 's been long a known fact Corrections is the bastard child of law enforcement and Civil Service. If this book would 've been penned by an officer who has had a modicum of experience, let 's say 3 to 5 years of service, I believe the point of view would have been more plausible. If you took note of my critique of this writer you would have understood the position I 've taken.
Can an individual go through basic military training and call themselves an accomplished experienced Navy Seal or an Army Ranger? The same issue stands with Conover. Merely attending the Correction Acadeny does not make you an experienced Officer. Conover contacted me concerning my critique. At least he was man enough to step up to the plate. I had a one on one session with him. He was genuinely interested why I critiqued the book in a vociferous manner. He
…show more content…
As for being touchy I 've been called names you never heard of. That does 'nt bother me at all. What grates on my nerves is the basic fact that Correction Officers are almost always bastardized by other people. Respect is nearly nill. In many cases that make headlines, the media sells pulp and is only interested in sensationalism. Conover is a part of this media frenzy who are quick to judge us when something has gone awry. This holds true with many departments but Corrections doesn 't net good press let alone acknowledgement from the public for engaging in a career that is challenging, highly stressful, tedious, thankless and away from the publics view. I 'm not looking for kudos or a pat on the back but at least give us the benefit of the doubt before deeming Correction Officers as lazy brainless sloths incable of securing any other positions in law enforcement. Conover not only alludes to the fact Correction Officers are not only limited educationally but by the luck of the draw Officers are only a