Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It makes no sense for them to be incarcerated in their choice of accommodations. They are there because they are miscreants. Coddling criminals is always a mistake. I gives them incentive to commit more crime.
It makes no sense for them to be incarcerated in their choice of accommodations. They are there because they are miscreants. Coddling criminals is always a mistake. I gives them incentive to commit more crime.
Why do the most coddled prisoners in the world have the lowest rates of recidivism?
Lori Loughlin is a non-violent criminal, who poses no danger to society at large. Yes, she should be punished for her crime, but society does not need to be physically protected from her. Prisons should be reserved for people who pose a danger to society. Loughlin should be confined to house arrest, monitored by an ankle bracelet. Only if she violates the terms of her arrest should she be moved to a secured facility.
But to answer the OP's actual question, I don't see any reason why convicted criminals should be given any say in where they are incarcerated. Such decisions should be based on the needs and convenience of society at large.
Lori Loughlin is a non-violent criminal, who poses no danger to society at large. Yes, she should be punished for her crime, but society does not need to be physically protected from her. Prisons should be reserved for people who pose a danger to society. Loughlin should be confined to house arrest, monitored by an ankle bracelet. Only if she violates the terms of her arrest should she be moved to a secured facility.
But to answer the OP's actual question, I don't see any reason why convicted criminals should be given any say in where they are incarcerated. Such decisions should be based on the needs and convenience of society at large.
Thousands of non-violent so-called criminal Men and women are subjected to prison; certainly, this Savage in Satin should enjoy the cell as those before her.
Rubbish a criminal is a Criminal is a Criminal also- never should we negotiate with criminals; affording criminals blue-collar/white-collar Thug or HOODLUMS alike.
Have you ever considered such leniency prior to this particular woman?
There are many reasons for giving an offender some choice when it comes to confinement. Visitation from family members and legal counsel are considerations. Legal counsel may need access to the client in terms of filing appeals even after conviction. There are limits to how many guards can be employed and how large correctional staff can be. Very few people want to be in prison, but most will accept the situation if some allowance is made for visitation. So, its better for everyone, not just inmates.
Choice has it limits. If the inmate needs a medium security facility they will not be placed in a facility where there is only minimum security available. If an inmate demonstrates he will not behave in a particular facility other options will have to be undertaken. Availability of space is also a factor. If one facility is crowded another will have to be found.
Rubbish a criminal is a Criminal is a Criminal also- never should we negotiate with criminals; affording criminals blue-collar/white-collar Thug or HOODLUMS alike.
Have you ever considered such leniency prior to this particular woman?
The whole point of the justice system is to balance the scales relative to the tools and procedures we have in place and meet a moral imperative for society's benefit. If you abadon the tenets of justice, it means we as individuals are not longer protected by anything but the weapons we carry.
A first time non felony offender shouldn't be imprisoned in a maximum security facility with life time criminals and gangbangers. That is not justice and does not benefit anyone including the victim of the crime.
If the idea of prison is to rejoin sociwty after your sentence has been served, I do believe individuals should be able to choose not to go to elements where their life would be in increased danger or increased ceiminality. Mind you, I think a fundamental flaw in giving individuals the choice is that "white collar" crime is often viewed as 'nicer' or less harmful than simple assault, lr even drug possession. Whether it is or not is another debate.
And with that, this debate appears to have run its course.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
