It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lane County, Oregon, Releasing Nearly 100 Inmates, Some Killers, Amid Budget Woes

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Huffington Post




Budget cuts may not kill, but they can lead to the release of killers. Oregon’s Lane County this month freed 92 of its prisoners, some of them accused killers, after closing an entire wing in its facility, according to Foxnews.com. The county is facing a $100 million budget deficit and, in an aim to close the gap, is leaving more than two-thirds of its jail beds empty. Other things that have fallen victim to cuts: Nearly 65 positions in the Sheriff’s department, leaving up to 8 hours per day when there’s no one to respond to calls fo


Well i don't know about you but i really don't think prisons are helping anyone or our culture as a whole. As a matter of fact i think they hurt us overall. Having said that this is scary, first in Scranton public employees are making $7.50 an hour, Stockton goes bankrupt, now Oregon is releasing inmates. This is a continuing trend we need to keep an eye on.

I remember being in jail in Orange County California a few years or so ago when they had to release a bunch of inmates and cut down on % times that are being served. I'm assuming this is happening everywhere with a lot less publicity to keep the public docile.

Eventually i may need to make the choice to go move with my family incase anything starts happening.

P.S. - I just got into a fight when i was drunk no big deal. (disclaimer)

edit on 16-7-2012 by onequestion because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
What I don't understand is, why don't they release non violent, offenders? Why release suspected killers? Doesn't make sense. Maybe I missed it. 92 inmates. Doesn't seem like a whole lot. I think they could be a little more "selective" for who they release.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by MoosKept240
 


I agree. The problem with all of this crime is it's related to drug trafficking one way or another. Even violent crimes are typically related to alcohol and drugs.

92 isn't a lot but it is showing a growing trend.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


The only reason I didn't pull the "they should let all the drug offenders off" route, is because it is Oregon. And I know it is more legal for some things. So I wasn't 100% on what there prisons/jails are full of. But I would think there would be at least 92 non violent inmates, they could release instead of suspected killers.

I really don't have an opinion on the budget woes part of the thread. Sorry, I have budget problems at home to worry about.
Its not that I don't care, I just have no opinion towards it. I do, though, have an opinion about suspected killers walking free though. And I hope that doesn't become a growing trend.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MoosKept240
 


Odds are if they are only "suspected" killers they are not convicted of killing anyone. They are more than likely manslaughter defendants, or some other lesser crime that resulted in someone's death and are being released until trial. The problem here is the media throwing around the word "killer" to elicit a knee jerk response. A person suspected of vehicular manslaughter would fit the definition. Just more half assed reporting from our friends at Fox News little on substance much on rhetoric.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by MoosKept240
 


Odds are if they are only "suspected" killers they are not convicted of killing anyone. They are more than likely manslaughter defendants, or some other lesser crime that resulted in someone's death and are being released until trial. The problem here is the media throwing around the word "killer" to elicit a knee jerk response. A person suspected of vehicular manslaughter would fit the definition. Just more half assed reporting from our friends at Fox News little on substance much on rhetoric.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't feel real comfy with distinctions on people in jail for taking the life of another person, whatever the cause. If it was clear enough, they wouldn't still be sitting in the can looking for a way out. I think it's a case where the reason is as important as anything else and kicking felony charges out the back door just seems wrong. I'm real glad I don't live anywhere near that community.

After all, what is this telling every other two bit street urchin and petty criminal? Pull the stunt on a busy period and the stay in jail will be short enough. Talk about a way to encourage crime, not fight it. Lets release all the NON-violent offenders who hurt absolutely no one except perhaps themselves...and when not ONE remains..THEN lets see about someone who is directly responsible for someone else being dead. Just my thought.
edit on 16-7-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 
Only 92 were released because those were the only ones who really, really, really promised to be good.




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I bet it was a pinky promise!

2nd line



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Lane county is having a serious budget crisis. That is why the inmates were released. The majority of the cells are already empty. There are no less serious offenders, unless they just checked in.
edit on 17-7-2012 by tamusan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Again "suspected" in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. Unless you really want it to be the other way around. But again the reporting on this really doesn't go into detail as to who did what or how many. I have serious doubts that they would let a Dahmer or Manson out on the streets. For all we know they could be sitting there waiting for trial because they couldn't raise bail for whatever reason. If they don't show up for court because they got out without posting a bond is an entirely separate issue.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MoosKept240
What I don't understand is, why don't they release non violent, offenders? Why release suspected killers? Doesn't make sense. Maybe I missed it. 92 inmates. Doesn't seem like a whole lot. I think they could be a little more "selective" for who they release.


I am in agreement with you 100%

If releasing inmates needs to be done, then the State should be releasing non violent drug offenders since they make up a majority of our prison population to begin with!

edit on 17-7-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Again "suspected" in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. Unless you really want it to be the other way around. But again the reporting on this really doesn't go into detail as to who did what or how many. I have serious doubts that they would let a Dahmer or Manson out on the streets. For all we know they could be sitting there waiting for trial because they couldn't raise bail for whatever reason. If they don't show up for court because they got out without posting a bond is an entirely separate issue.

Well, we can what if it to death and to the point of silly. I think the bottom line that matters is that someone thought there was a good reason all these guys ought to be sitting in jail. That never changed. The money is what changed and that's all the wrong reason to be letting criminal suspects out. Just my thoughts...and I really hope not one of these guys commits violent crime. I'd love to be proven wrong here. It'll mean no one got hurt by this.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join