Apparently here they are not being treated properly after operations...etc (Barton St jail)
It depends on a lot of factors... including why they're inmates. Because some might dersevre minimum to none, depending on what they have done.
But I don't believe inmates should be threaten better than the average free person... getting expensive surgeries that they don't necessary need while as inmates (unless maybe they're fully paying for them).
The real concern is that so many 'inmates' were wrongfully convicted, actually committed very minor crimes (like smoking a joint), or worse - have never been charged with amy crime - in violation of habeas corpus.
If those people in jail where actually guilt of crimes my answer would be different, but knowing that as many as half off all detainees are wrongfully detained, I say that we should provide the same level of care available to the warden.
Thanks...I was just about to ask for a takedown of this post...
I heard that. Just googled it and found several links, like this one.
Rikers island isn't exactly Sheriff Taylor's Mayberry jail with Aunt Bea providing fresh baked apple pie.
So long as we're arresting, convicting, in many cases killing innocent people who have already been unjustly imprisoned for a crime or crimes they didn't commit, I'd say we have to provide them with the adequate health care.
Fortunately, there's a great way to cut costs... We could stop arresting people for victimless crimes that simply snowball as a result of their being poor and we could focus on actual criminals.
Just my two cents on the matter.
Fork, I guess the question that needs to be asked, is what is a victimless crime?
Just want to hear your thoughts on it.
Me personally define it? Okay.
If it were me, I would personally define a "victimless" crime as a crime where the person being criminally charged suffers more damage than the justification, or perceived victim, used to criminalize the act.
Auto-insurance and vehicle registration laws tend to hit low income families particularly hard. Some simply can't pay to renew a piece of paper every year, even with a job. When they cut back, often vehicle insurance is the first to go. The fines for this in some states can actually snowball into a suspended license, loss of vehicle and thus the inability to work at all for many commuters.
When someone is arrested as the result of a situation like this, sure it's a great revenue to the state, but it's also a great burden to the taxpayer, the individual and often their entire family. I would consider this a victimless crime. The state doesn't suffer, society doesn't suffer their action, the person suffers the most.
I can see part of that.
I had a friend who has rear ended in Denver back in December by a guy going 70 mph. My friend didn't have much to begin with. The other driver was a young guy with no insurance. My friend only had liability insurance. My friend was paralyzed from the neck down. After a couple surgeries, he can move his arms but has no grip strength and will never walk again. He has been in a rehab hospital but is being booted out next week. (No pay, no stay) Medicaid only pays for so long.
He lost everything he had because the other guy had no insurance. He doesn't know where he will go when released because he has nothing left. He will be in a motorized wheelchair the rest of his life. His daughter is trying to help him find a low rent apartment where he can move into. It will have to have a bidet since he can't even wipe his own butt anymore. He is now on medicaid because he didn't have health insurance. He will probably go on some form of welfare for the rest of his life.
This isn't an uncommon event. I don't think having no insurance is a victimless crime. It's only victimless if the insurance wasn't "needed".
I know times get tough financially. Before people cancel their insurance, do they cancel cable TV and internet service? Do they cancel their smart phone service? Do they explore using public transportation until they can afford insurance? Much of life is about priorities and choices.
You are so right. Equality means that everyone has to abide by the laws. I know too many who have been hit by uninsured that have had to take the brunt of the costs themselves. I've fought with the insurance co's over this very issue. It is not a victimless crime - we all end up paying more because of those who would rather have a bottle than insurance and then go out on the highway.
When a law is both unjust and ineffective, it shouldn't be a law and regardless of how well meaning a law it is.
Let's not forget that the person in the example cited above would have been at fault regardless of insurance laws and insurance laws were ineffective at ensuring he was able to pay for the damages. Sure, it's a tragic and wrong situation. But still a situation the law failed and to remedy or prevent.
If the law fails at its purpose, yet harms people who aren't at fault for such recklessness... That isn't equality, that's simply a failed law.
And that's my whole point, the law as is allowed the victimization of the innocent, not a remedy for them.
The problem with that argument is the right of movement is as fundamental and self-evident as the right to bear arms, it isn't a choice.
To be clear, I never said people who cause accidents that lead to great injury or damage should be able to do so without consequence.
I'm referring to solely to those incarcerated due to their being poor in the manner of snowballed fines and penalties for "crimes" where no one was injured and no property damaged.
I would reject outright even the suggestion that compulsory auto-insurance prevents automobile accidents and injury when compulsory gun law fails to prevent gun death, murder or gun injury.
The person who hit your friend should certainly be punished, not because he chose to have a smart phone rather than insurance, but because his irresponsible driving hurt someone.
You example proves an important point, compulsory auto-insurance fails to prevent such accidents. The problem is people don't abide the law. The person who hit your friend would still be at fault for the damages regardless of whether or not insurance was compulsory, but compulsory insurance law made no difference in the person's who hit your friend decision as to carry insurance.
You seem to miss the point of insurance all together much less compulsory insurance. Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you get to ignore it. If I have to pay insurance I want everyone to pay it. Go to prison? then you get a job in prison and pay for your own health care and restitution and then insurance until you earn your way out of prison. No freebies off the backs of working in America. Your ideas are what is making middle Americans poor.
Just my opinion, on the one hand it feel right that everybody should carry insurance the fact that it is mandated takes us to the next step in that line of thinking if I have insurance then I am not at fault even if i am the one that hit you. in the guise of being fare to everyone the insurance companies and the government have dope us into believing that nothing is our fault and if i carry enough insurance then I don't half to be responsible for my action this is just one symptom of what is wrong with our country today it is always someone else’s fault. He is correct that victimless crimes such as the guy who is arrested for having two ounces of weed because he wants to space out his visits to his pusher and then gets pulled over and goes to jail for 5 years because he was caring enough that they can get him on sale charges even though that was never his intent. Now don’t get me wrong he is responsible for his situation but the reason these laws are in place are to feed the coffers not to keep us safe from this hardened criminal.
How many people do you know that are in prison for two ounces of weed? I'm just not buying that line. Local cops pretty much look the other way on this particular issue.
Auto-insurance needn't be mandated to provide a legal accountability damages. In every state in this nation a person is responsible for damages incurred as a result of their negligence.
The purpose of mandated insurance is the lower the costs, it has nothing to do with keeping people safe.
Unless it's a mandated health insurance law and the middle income are finally having to pay for the service provided to them, right? Then it's okay to demand an insurance system without mandate.
I carry full coverage auto-insurance, not because the govt. mandates it, but because I want my stuff replaced and even though, being a Katrina survivor, I know that even carrying govt. mandated insurance doesn't guarantee my stuff will be replaced .
But we aren't talking about me personally. You seem to miss that point.
The inability to have policy a discussion based on the relevant details without making it a personal attack is why nothing ever gets solved in this country. That's what's making all Americans poorer, not my personal insurance practices. Let's keep that in mind at all times, thanks.
I re-read you post. You have insurance to ensure your stuff gets replaced..... So do I..... Lets look at insurance companies. It's also a numbers game for them. If you are a good driver, and not a high risk driver, your rates go down. Can you imagine what your rates would be if 50% of the population didn't have insurance, and your insurance company didn't have another insurance company to go after to pay for damages to your car by someone else who was at fault?
Of course it's a numbers game. That's my whole point, the mandate has nothing to do with making people safer, it has to do with making insurance cheaper for those who can afford it by punishing many who can't.
It is everything that was wrong with Obama-care only expressed in a different marketplace.
I don't think govt. mandate should be purchasable by a mob and through democracy.. I reject that as a proper role of govt. The purpose of govt. is to secure rights, not cheaper insurance rates.
I'm so sorry you took my comments personally, I mean't you as in lefties, not you in particular.
You snideness and sarcasm, personally, are noted.
I can't attribute any other meaning to the word "you" than its definition. I'm not reading into anything more than its definition.
Your words don't apply to me personally because I'm none of the categories with which you've taken issue. I'm simply pointing that out to "you" as it seems "you" think they do and I attribute that inference to your use of the word "you," not some hidden meaning I've reassigned to your words.
I'm not being sarcastic. I'm quite serious when I say that policy ideas don't make Americans poorer, rather red-herrings like attacking a messenger do as they're so often mistaken for constructive debate, impeding meaningful dialogue much less the implementation of real solutions.
If you think that's snide, that's your right, but you would be wrong. It isn't snide to recognize fallacies as fallacies, it's perfectly reasonable and I'm scarcely the first to do it.
Compulsory auto insurance isn't meant to prevent accidents. It is meant to compensate people who are the victims of people who are the cause of accidents. It's why a finance company requires you have full coverage on a vehicle. If you went out and bought a new car, financed it, and a week later, wrapped it around a telephone pole, the finance company is able to recoup what is owed on the car. If I went out and bought a new car and someone ran a stop sign and totaled my car with a 1975 pickup they got for $200, should I have to eat the loss of my $45,000 car because the guy who hit me, and was at fault, has no money to pay for my loss?
In the case of my friends accident, insurance would have helped a lot with the medical bills, and paid to replace his vehicle.
Insurance is a necessity. A carnival or amusement park has to have liability insurance. If they have a faulty ride and a child get severely injured, should the kids parents just suck it up and accept it? A Dr has to have medical malpractice insurance. If he cuts the testicles off the wrong patient, should the patient just deal with the loss?
Again, mandated insurance didn't create a compensation method for damages suffered as the result of others negligence, that's a legal framework that's long existed and would continue to exist regardless of insurance laws.
And when the person who has no insurance, also has no money, or other ways to compensate the person he injured o property he damaged? Then what? Do you think the person who wasn't at fault should just eat the damages? Could "you" afford to pay someones 100,000 medical bills? Could you replace someones new car? "That" is why there is mandatory insurance. You can't sue someone for damages, who doesn't have anything.
The same results as happen every day under the current compulsory auto-insurance system, a judgement is drafted against them.
And therein lies the problem, the current compulsory system fails to remedy the very situation cited as a justification for its existence.
Again, no one is suggesting that those who cause accidents be given a free pass to do so.
The suggestion is that those who haven't caused an accident not be saddled with further undue hardship via penalty when they're already shouldering the risk of losing a vehicle and any potential future ownership of any substance simply so others who can afford insurance enjoy cheaper rate and the state turn a revenue. This is literally a crime with no victim.
When it comes to laws, if there is no stiff penalty for not following them, who would abide by them?
Here is an example of a crazy law in KS. An out of state deer tag cost $350. An out of state hunting license is an additional $97. That's a total of $447. If you get caught hunting deer without the license and tag, it's a $300 fine. Where is the incentive to get the tag and license? Add on the fact that the odds of being checked by the game warden are slim.
There's a pretty stiff penalty for murder, that hasn't stopped it. People drive without tags or licenses as well.
Laws don't deter criminals. See: gun laws.
Anyway, you asked for an example of a victimless crime. So... that's mine and I stand by it. Perhaps if we spent less time enforcing silliness like that, we could dedicate more time to stopping murders, school shootings and other real crimes. jmo
If you, or I, came up with the answer to actually "stop" crime, nobody would listen to us anyway.
Legalization is usually a step toward stopping a crime, there's good, longstanding evidence to support that premise.
Some things need to remain illegal regardless of whether or not laws against them stop such things from occurring. But generally speaking, crime prevention is a farce. It's a fanciful concept used to convince people to willingly give up their rights on the pretense that someone somewhere might save their day in their hour of need.
It's a harsh world we live in, and the criminals in prisons are the ones who made it harsher. Many of their victims can't afford healthcare.
While I understand that no system is 100% perfect, I believe that over 99% of those tried and convicted of a crime, are guilty.
I have a huge problem with that aspect of our justice system. Too many are above the law and aren't subject to paying the consequences of their actions. Politicians are the first that come to mind, followed by those politically connected, those part of a "protected" class, including illegals, and last but not least, celebrities.
Also, the reality is, most of the worst crime, the really violent nasty crime, is committed by a few individuals in a given area. Yet most private prisons are overflowing.
They're still human beings. They deserve the same healthcare as free people.
A lot more than most facilities provide, particularly psychiatric aid. according to two sources.
All people deserve to take care of their health, if you're wanting suffering.. Damn, just kill them you think their mistake deserves to prevent them from living their long imprisoned life in additional misery. There needs to be a reform either way.