Starting September 1, Alabama prisoners who are 55 or older and have a
life-threatening disease but have not been sentenced for sex offenses or
capital crimes will have the possibility to be granted furloughs.
"A Justice Department official said rising medical costs and mandatory sentencing
guidelines that lock prisoners up for longer terms are the reasons so many states
have implemented the furloughs, also called humanitarian paroles or
compassionate releases," according to the article in the Montgomery newspaper.
Alabama claims it will save the state millions since it costs the state between $60,000 to
$65,000 a year in medical costs for sick or dying prisoners.
Victims Rights Advocates are against the release and claim it only shifts the costs
from one agency to another. When released the medical costs are paid by Medicare and
Medicaid, plans of the federal and state governments. Victims are notified of the release.
There are 125 inmates who are eligible for release.
Thirty-seven other states have early release programs for the dying and infirm.
How compassionate are you? DO you think we should provide early release to
those who will die within a year? There are multiple pros and cons and I would
really like to hear how you feel about this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I have a problem with this because it only excludes capital crimes and sex offenses. I believe it should exclude murderers as well. Saving the state money is not a valid justification to release a murderer. I can't imagine what it might put a victim's family through to know that their loved one's killer is allowed to go free, possibly to spend his/her final days surrounded by family. Imagine that you have a loved one who was murdered, alone and terrified in the middle of nowhere, with no chance to say goodbye to his family. Now imagine that his murderer is released early because of illness, and that murderer gets to go home, say goodbye to and perhaps reconcile with his family. I know that I would not support early release for the murderer of one of my loved ones, therefore it would be tragically hypocritical of me to support it for any murderer.
Violent criminal BELONG in prison. If states want to save money on incarceration, releasing violent criminal early, for ANY reason, is not the best solution. Instead, they should release non-violent offenders, or better yet change their laws so that non-violent offenders are not imprisoned in the first place. State officials talk about saving $65K for releasing a terminally ill murderer?? How much could they save by instead releasing 20 non-violent drug offenders, for example? The "land of the free" has the highest per capita prison population in the world, and it is tragic and embarassing.
It is an insult to our intelligence for a corrections department to suggest that releasing violent felons early due to illness is a plausible money saving measure for the state.
There is little doubt that we need to revise our penal code so that non-violent offenders are sentenced to community corrections and prison space is used for the violent offender.
Until we rethink the mandatory minimum sentences and the sentencing guidelines, we will be faced with too many felons needing beds in prison that are not available.
I concur with your feeling about a murder victim's family.
Post a Comment