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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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/)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson