Skip to comments.
Aging inmates straining prison systems
AP ^
| August 16th 2010
| NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS
Posted on 08/16/2010 7:17:15 AM PDT by Cardhu
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
Washington has 2,495 inmates who are age 50 or older, the state's definition of elderly, according to information released after a public records request from The Associated Press. There are 270 inmates over the age of 65.
The infirm started arriving at the new assisted living facility at Coyote Ridge when it opened on Feb. 1.
1
posted on
08/16/2010 7:17:17 AM PDT
by
Cardhu
To: Cardhu
So what? Should we do what was done with the Lockerbie bomber, and release them?
2
posted on
08/16/2010 7:18:33 AM PDT
by
pnh102
(Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
To: pnh102
I think that’s the left’s mindset......yes.
3
posted on
08/16/2010 7:20:58 AM PDT
by
RushIsMyTeddyBear
(I don't have a 'Cousin Pookie'.)
To: Cardhu
Not to worry.
ObamaCare will finish them off
4
posted on
08/16/2010 7:27:15 AM PDT
by
Zakeet
(Mark Steyn: We're too broke to be this stupid)
To: pnh102
Turn their ‘care’ over to Sheriff Joe Arpaio for more deserving incarciration and treatment. Give those who need them pink, non-motorized wheelchairs.
5
posted on
08/16/2010 7:31:44 AM PDT
by
GGpaX4DumpedTea
(I am a tea party descendant - steeped in the Constitutional legacy handed down by the Founders)
To: pnh102
Somebody posted a funny e-mail about why we should put elderly people in prison and jailbirds in nursing homes.
I don't recall the entire content but some snippets were prisons cost the families nothing but nursing homes cost them around $4500 per month.
You get hot meals in prison, but cold food in nursing homes.
Jailbirds get checked on constantly, people in nursing homes only when the staff has time.
6
posted on
08/16/2010 7:32:39 AM PDT
by
Vigilanteman
(Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
To: Cardhu
I support more liberal use of the death penalty. Maximum sentence should be 5 years in prison. Then, they come out and their medical problems are theirs and not society’s. Of course, some crimes are so heinous that a 5-yr sentence would be a slap in the face to victims, families and to society. If a 5 year sentence is inappropriate, then they get the death penalty. Repeat offenders also get the death penalty: no revolving doors.
To: Cardhu
"I'd be a burden on my kids," said the native Texan. "I'd rather be a burden to these people." I see he's really learned his lesson.
Who's paying for all this healthcare and a motorized wheelchair?
Presumably the state of Texas, when the bill should be sent to his family.
8
posted on
08/16/2010 7:34:56 AM PDT
by
wideawake
To: Vigilanteman
But just like all state and federal employees, their health care will be better than ours.
To: Cardhu
Stories like this make me understand just how easy it is for an entire society to embrace an ideology like Nazism when economic circumstances are difficult.
10
posted on
08/16/2010 7:42:59 AM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
("Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark.")
To: ClearCase_guy
“I support more liberal use of the death penalty”
Indeed.
This article exposes the lie that imposing a death sentence (for the appropriate crime) often “costs more” (in terms of dollars) than does a “life sentence”.
That was a lie when it was first foisted upon us by the left, and it remains a lie.
11
posted on
08/16/2010 7:44:50 AM PDT
by
Grumplestiltskin
(I may look new, but it's only deja vu!)
To: Cardhu
IIRC, there was not a mention of much of the effect on the recidivism rate because of longer sentences. The death penalty and long sentences cut down on repeat offenders, IMO.
12
posted on
08/16/2010 7:46:07 AM PDT
by
burroak
To: Cardhu
"I'd be a burden on my kids," said the native Texan. "I'd rather be a burden to these people." "These people" would be taxpayers.
13
posted on
08/16/2010 7:46:23 AM PDT
by
Onelifetogive
(For the record, McCarthy was right.)
To: wideawake
“...the bill should be sent to his family.”
Sounds good, but it’s not really practical is it? Besides, his family didn’t choose to put him in jail, the state did.
14
posted on
08/16/2010 7:46:51 AM PDT
by
swain_forkbeard
(Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
To: pnh102
The ACLU estimates that it costs about $72,000 to house an elderly inmate for a year, compared to $24,000 for a younger prisoner.
This kind of math irks my guts.....the jailers are being paid anyhow, the food's being purchased anyhow, and the jail's already there....these numbers just break up the allocation on a per capita basis.
It's just like how the left bleats on about how much wars cost.
15
posted on
08/16/2010 7:47:05 AM PDT
by
ErnBatavia
(It's not the Obama Administration....it's the "Obama Regime".)
To: Cardhu
The only treatment that should be administered to old prisoners is to administer drugs to suppress the pain. Nothing to extend the life of the prisoner, let nature take its’ course.
16
posted on
08/16/2010 7:47:31 AM PDT
by
dfwgator
To: swain_forkbeard
Besides, his family didnt choose to put him in jail, the state did.He decided to go to jail by committing murder.
Out here in the real world, the elderly have their medical bills covered by insurance, federal programs, their savings or by family members ponying up the money.
This guy should not have frills like a motorized wheelchair - and yes, I realize that for many law-abiding non-murderers a motorized wheelchair is a baseline necessity, but those citizens deserve a higher standard to begin with and this inmate has hundreds of people standing around him with literally nothing better to do than to push him from point A to point B.
If he wants anything above inner city ER-level healthcare, he should ask his kids for help or do without.
To: dfwgator
I agree with that. I don't understand TVs in jail, or fitness centers, or special food preparation, or medical and dental benefits.
I say put them in a room, feed them oatmeal, let them serve their time. I'm being slightly facetious here, not not very!
To: wideawake
This is a problem that’s only going to get worse due to the ever-expanding options for treatment and the corresponding costs thereof. If it was a simple problem, it wouldn’t really be a problem.
19
posted on
08/16/2010 8:11:31 AM PDT
by
swain_forkbeard
(Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
To: Cardhu
"We're reaping the fruits of bad public policy like Three Strikes laws and other mandatory minimum sentencing laws," said David C. Fathi, director of the ACLU National Prison Project in Washington, D.C. "One in 11 prisoners is serving a life sentence."
Actually, we're reaping the fruits of activist judges who make mandatory minimum sentencing and Three Strikes laws necessary.
As I noted in a
piece I wrote about an man being deported under similar guidelines,
...Prior to the 1996 immigration law revisions, judges had the discretion to consider mitigating factors such as community ties and whether the person posed a real security threat. Judges abused that discretion according to Federation for American Immigration Reform executive director Dan Stein. The Star-Telegram quotes Stein alleging that some judges created a massive loophole via their activism. Amongst the cited evidence was a 37 percent recidivism rate for criminal aliens released under the previous judicial discretion.
Stories like this are being offered to rally support for a restoration of judicial discretion without even criticizing the activism that served to arrest it in the first place. The proper role for judges in a free society is to interpret the law in specific cases based upon legislative intent. Some elites, however, would rather the judiciary be an instrument of wise restraint/guidance that robed and unelected Philosopher Kings would use to overcome any unwise popular mandate. That is why this cadre prefers controversial issues to be settled in the courts rather than debated openly on the floors of elected legislative bodies.
It would indeed be best if the judges could be trusted to exercise discretion in interpreting the law.
...but they cannot, hence the necessity for such guidelines.
...we as a society would not be faced with the choice of punishing [certain convicts] with such disproportionate harshness or resuming a status quo in which so many criminals were needlessly allowed to go free.
-- So much for the professed Compassion of the Enlightened.
The fact that mandatory sentencing guidelines, three-strikes-youre-out laws and automatic deportation mechanisms should be considered necessary is an absurd testament to a body of jurists who are deeply corrupted by elitist arrogance.
20
posted on
08/16/2010 8:24:58 AM PDT
by
walford
(http://natural-law-natural-religion.blogspot.com/)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson