Did you know that in four states —California, Connecticut, New York, and Washington (All Democrat States if yo hadn't noticed) — select low-security prisons continue offering conjugal visits, providing good-behavior inmates private overnights with spouses in equipped trailers or rooms?
These “extended family visits” grant verified couples 24-48 hours with beds, showers, and basic kitchens — no children overnight, only after strict searches and vetting. It’s unavailable in federal facilities or maximum-security prisons across the country, where security trumps such privileges.
Eligibility demands flawless records, often just for long-term inmates who’ve earned trust. California’s CDCR limits to minimum camps; New York’s trailer setups run at sites like Coxsackie. Couples supply groceries; linens may be provided—far from lockdown norms elsewhere.
Introduced mid-20th century to foster family ties and potentially lower recidivism, programs peaked in 20+ states by the 1990s. Mississippi pioneered them; early data suggested benefits. But practicality won out: by the 2010s, costs ($100+ per cleanup), staffing shortages, and contraband risks (hidden drugs, phones) led most states—Iowa (2015), Kentucky (2012), South Carolina (2017)— to end them amid fiscal pressures and heightened security needs.
Proponents point to studies showing reduced reoffending through family stability; opponents argue resources should prioritize core punishment and victim support over extras. These four states maintain scaled-back versions, but no expansions anywhere signal the era’s end for this once-common practice.
...
There is a pro-criminal attitude in this country that focuses on the worst people in society. Prison is supposed to be punishment. What benefits are their victims getting?
ReplyDeleteVigilantism is the result when victims don't perceive they've received justice. So I agree with Anonymous 7:58 that punishment must be part of the equation. We have never had a justice system. We used have a legal system. We now have a lottery system that favors the "disadvantaged" gambling on the judge letting them off with less than a slap on the wrist.
ReplyDeleteAt one point, the sentencing question was "How much of a threat to society is this person?" Now the question seems to be "Is this person part of a protected class?" I suppose the left is hoping for the rise of vigilantism, if for no other reason that they can forcibly suppress it.