Dying Inside: Elderly in prison

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by gwynnhwyfar
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Yes! That is pretty much exactly what I had in mind. That is how I think it should work. Thank you Vicky32.

Edit to say that I am responding to Vicky32, not to the poster above me who wants to throw them out on the streets. That is definitely NOT an option in my book.
edit on 1-0120101-1111 by gwynnhwyfar because: (no reason given)

Thank you Gwynnhwyfar, and may I just say that you have a completely awesome name? I love it...
Vicky




posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
This might seem a little harsh, but they should be there. Just because they are old doesn't give them a reason to be free.
If they did not want to be there, they should not have committed the crime in the first place.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
My first feeling/thought/emotion when I see the elderly in prison from the video is compassion - just as I have for any elderly person that is suffering. And my second thought is that they put their selves in that position by commiting crimes that gave them life in prison and they should serve their sentence. They did not seem to be neglected or treated inhumanely, they are getting medical care and it probably doesn't cost as much as if they were free and in a nursing home - taxpayers would still have to pay the bill either way.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Other countries don't seem to have this problem... i don't get why it costs so much to keep someone in jail
Does a prisoner really need a flatscreen TV air conditioner and a comfy bed?


I say let them rot, they are in jail for life for a reason!!!



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Just because they are old does not make them better people, most are still hurtfull. Myself an a friend became victim to a 65 year old crim...

I say let them all rot!



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


I think that what you've heard has been exaggerated, but, yes, the insanity defense doesn't really work all that well here. You basically have to bay at the moon inside of the courtroom to actually have it be a viable defense strategy, regardless of how obvious your mental illness is to anyone with of reasonable intelligence.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
If a person can no longer remember their crime, and are no longer a threat to themselves or others, it seems counterproductive to keep them incarcerated.

That is, unless you own CXW or GEO shares.
edit on 1-1-2011 by ayoss because: readability



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Constantlysilenced
 

Out of they're own pockets? Thats not likely. Most inmates that old don't have families to help them. The tax payers will end up picking up the slack. Which, in this case, is the majority of it.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
The answer to the problem isn't freeing these old people, even if they have health problems. The problem resides in stupid sentences, such as going to jail for drug consumption or stupid things like that.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I did not read the whole thread and it may have already been said but the first thing they need to do is release most of the non violent offenders and repeal all the victimless crimes like drug crimes and prostitution etc. to reduce the prison population and keep it manageable.

Instead they are inventing more crimes. It will change soon as cities, counties, and states go broke they will be forced to. It is already happening in California. They could boost the economy by just legalizing marijuana it is already the biggest cash crop in the country now. if they release all marijuana related prisoners and collect taxes on it and stop wasting resources trying to prevent it they would be ahead of the game.

Then maybe they could afford to keep the lifers that deserve to be in there.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


I think it would actually be a close to a wash financially. Most of these folks don't have the means to care for themselves nor family willing to take up the burden and as a result would be on public assistance and perhaps in a state run facility, although not a prison. Is it cheaper? No, prison is more expensive, but it is not a $100K to free scenario.

You also have the issue with folks faking senility for hopes of getting released.

Perhaps the solution is a different kind of facility, more like a minimum security facility.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
In Calif a elderly prisoner going to a hospital even if they in a wheelchair and can not walk or are in a coma requires two sometimes three guards to keep him from escaping.
For this the guards get travel pay even if the hospital is only 2 miles away.
If there is only two guards they work 12 hour shifts and get overtime.

Sometimes there will be more then one prisoner in the hospital and each still gets two guards.
You could have 10 prisoners in a outside hospital and have 20 guards guards guarding them.

The guards union is out of control in Calif and get these on there union bargaining agreement because the democrats want there votes.

I worked as a transport EMT and seen this a number of times. As i did transports of prisoners in comas from prisons to hospitals.
Had a guard riding along and one following in a car just for a prisoner in a permanent coma. or ones that could not even move.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
2 million people in prison as of 2010 at a cost of 100,000 per prisoner.

lets do some math: 2,000,000 x $100,000 = 200,000,000,000.

yes that no. is correct 200 billion dollars a year spent to house prisoners.

either there is major corruption in the prison industry or the government is doing something very wrong.

yet a lousy extra 3 billion for 9-11 rescue workers who are coughing out a lung gets fought for over 7 years in congress.

pretty soon the federal budget is going to half for the military to expand the empire and half for law enforcement and prisons to control the population, regardless of crime.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


I think it would actually be a close to a wash financially. Most of these folks don't have the means to care for themselves nor family willing to take up the burden and as a result would be on public assistance and perhaps in a state run facility, although not a prison. Is it cheaper? No, prison is more expensive, but it is not a $100K to free scenario.

You also have the issue with folks faking senility for hopes of getting released.

Perhaps the solution is a different kind of facility, more like a minimum security facility.

For goodness' sake, if they are old enough to need care, they don't need prison! How vengeful do you need to be?
'faking senility to be released'? How paranoid would you have to be to assume prisoners are cunning and clever and evil enough to do that! It's a lot harder than you might think - and deffo not worth it especially if they're only going to end up on the streets!
My theory is that y'all are so paranoid about crime/criminals because in your hearts you know you deserve retribution for the things you allow your police and your system to do to people, especially the death penalty...
Vicky
edit on 1/1/11 by Vicky32 because: To add something...



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


So the question is already asked and answered as far as keeping the ailing and decrepit prisoners locked up. I think most of us agree that keeping them locked up is not necessary as they are likely confined to bed anyway.

It's not about that - it is about now what do you do with them? We still have to deal with them, so what to do? Release them to the wild? Send them to a long-term-care facility (still taxpayer funded)? I can just see them wheeling out the old mafia bosses in their hospital beds and tipping them over into Central Park.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
People in prison don't change, they only learn to be better criminals. i've seen it



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Mandatory sentences on drug crimes and releasing violent offenders to make room for them. Sure, let's invent more crimes to fill all the new prisons being built. Before sentencing them it might help to consider the long-range implications.

We don't need more prisons. Many so-called "crimes" are just personal lifestyle choices that could be permitted in various communities without a need to make them into a criminal. A nanny society wants to lock people up that don't conform. That is a problem in a lot of "conservative's" logic - play nanny and make more crimes. Try being more tolerant and quit locking people up. A few prisons could be used to incarcerate the truly dangerous - and that is certainly much fewer than is behind bars today.

The gray and feeble inmates? The system made them prisoners so the system needs to take care of them.

A little paradox, no? The freest country in the world has the largest prison population.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Whats the difference between an elderly person and a young person with a chronic illness/injury? If a gent gets his back broken while in prison and is confined to a wheel chair, should he get out? What about a prisoner with cancer?

In a criminal justice system where the sentences given out for major crimes are quite short, someone who is elderly in prison either committed terrible acts (multiple acts), committed crimes later in life or committed crimes while in prison.

Keeping these folks in prison is humane. Where are they going to go? Home? I don't think so. They have no where to go so they should stay where they are. They are there for a reason.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Constantlysilenced

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Constantlysilenced
Absolutely. If you do the crime, you do the time, regardless of whether you can remember what you done or even go to the toilet on your own.

well I can see ur point,
however, who's gonna pay
all that extra amount to
keep someone on staff
to wipe butts ???

I mean really, some of these prisons
look absolutely nothing like prisons,
but look like the local nursing home.


Surely if they are capable of committing the crimes that put them there, they are capable of wiping their own butts. Mind you, some sort of Secured Nursing Home could be an option, payed for out of the offenders own pocket so tax payers aren't burdened.


LOL how can some one who is locked up for life , so i assume would be in prison 30/40 years plus be able to pay for his own care ? Unless his really good at monopoly and the care facilitys accepted monopoly money there is no chance of that happening.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Constantlysilenced
Absolutely. If you do the crime, you do the time, regardless of whether you can remember what you done or even go to the toilet on your own.


Except in the case of repeat psychopathic crimes of extreme nature, I don't believe in prisons.

People who talk like this are brainwashed by the fasicst rulers.

However you cant throw them out on the street homeless and elderly either. Which I take is what they want to do.

Now it takes creating homes, apramtments and townhouses, and half way houses and providing care and dignity.

You know really good social services.
edit on 2-1-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join