For those of you who think we mollycoddle prisoners and former prisoners, I present the following for your consideration.
Is this tough enough for you, or do you think letting them use sleeping bags is too good for them?:rolleyes:
Is there a debate here or did you mean to post this in the Pit?
Marc
I think debate, myself. For those of you who are tough on crime, is the above example to your liking? Should the government be forced to spend money on halfway houses, or should it all be voluntary? Is it any wonder some former prisoners re-offend?
I consider myself tough on crime and the above example is abhorrent. Not only is it rather petty but I think it makes it more likely for someone to turn to crime and in the case of that particular woman she’s at a high risk of sexual assault.
I do think there should be government programs to help prisoners make the transition from prison to the real world.
Marc
Why is it absolutely no surprise that this is happening in Texas, the Third World country that thinks it’s a state?
Well, I don’t know if there’s really a debate here. Sounds like one county official (or maybe a few of them) being stupid. As for EC’s remark about Texas, not that the article ended thusly:
This seems to me to be an odd ball situation that in no way reflects the more mainstream thoughts on “toughness on crime” that one reads about. But I do agree that however tough we treat prisoners (and I’m all for making prison life unpleasant), once someone has paid his or her “debt to society” they should not be subject to indignations other than a strict parole period.
more or less what i was going to say. Texas is hard on criminals.
Seeing how the woman was only arrested for mischief and drug possession this is stupid.
Actually, this is not happening in Texas. The “Dallas” referred to in the article is the town of Dallas, Oregon.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!
You IDIOTS!!!
This is Dallas OREGON!!!
Take THAT all you assholes who talk about how backward Texas is!
I can’t wait until Blalron shows up!
Thanks, MEBuckner, for beating me to the punch! 
Oops, sorry, I also thought this was already in the pit. Excuse me. I guess I’m an idiot, too!
So…is that better or worse?
I thought it was talking about Polk County, Florida.
The purposes of incarceration are deterrence and rehabilitation. The policy highlighted in the article serves neither.
You forgot ‘punishment’.
Ahh, but should it be the policy to punish them after they’ve left the prison system?
Once they leave the prison system, they are free to sink or swim, like the rest of us. It is absurd to equate ‘not giving them stuff at my expense’ with ‘punishment’.
Of course, there is a simple way to avoid this whole mess: Stay the hell out of prison! The next time the urge to steal something or kill someone overcomes you, don’t! Our heroine, Michelle, could easily have avoided going to prison in the first place. She made choices, and now must live with all of the consequences.
I have managed to go all 28 years of my life without once being arrested. It is no great feat, most of us accomplish the same. Tough shit for those who do not.
So because she messed up she deserves to sleep in a parking lot full of rapists?
Czarcasm brings up a good point. Shouldn’t criminals be given a FAIR and EQUAL shake after having received their punishment, as doled out by a judge and/or jury of their peers? Of course they should. Indeed, what the Polk County corrections individuals are doing is EXACTLY what is FAIR and EQUAL to the rest of normal society.
Let us compare Ms. Mooneyham-Knowles’ situation to one that any one of us may someday face (our being evicted from our homes/apartments.) Whether or not Ms. Mooneyham-Knowles committed a violent crime or a crime of mischief (and drug posession) she was convicted and sentenced to prison time. When she got out, she had to find her own suitable housing (whether that be a shelter or an apartment, we will not discuss.) It was/is HER responsability to find some housing. If she couldn’t do that due to her confinement, then she should have had a relative or friend set it up (perhaps someone with whom she was committing mischief or dealing drugs? j/k)
Compare that to one of us falling behind on our rent. Mind you, its NOT A CRIME so long as you pay your debt up eventually, but you will be EVICTED from your home and as such, it would be your responsability (or that of a friend or relative) to find suitable shelter for yourself. This is EXACTLY the same thing that Ms. Mooneyham-Knowles faces, and as such, I play the world’s smallest violin for her.
Heck, while ranting I just thought of another thing. The fact that the folks at Polk County give convicts a spot to sleep (parking lot or no) is actually a bit BETTER than what an average non-convict would get. Most people, being evicted, who decided to sleep inside a park, streetcorner, whatnot, would be harassed, fined or arrested for vagrancy, yet these prisoners get to avoid that by sleeping in a designated area? What a load of tripe.
While Brutus’s perspective may appeal to everyone’s sense of compassion, how practical is it? She was only in prison for nine months. How is she supposed to get her life back on track and contribute to society and all that good stuff in such a situation? How is she supposed to take care of her daughter? Which is more of a drain on your precious expense: keeping that parking lot open, plus more and more as it fills up, forever, or putting her up for a couple of months until she can support herself?
Stemba, just because evictees are treated unfairly doesn’t mean that ex-convicts need to be treated unfairly.
The parking lot is optional. She is free to stay anywhere (within the terms of her parole) that she chooses to, and has the money to pay for. She is under no legal obligation to stay at the parkinging lot.