Quote:
Originally Posted by Nage Waza
I have made several posts on this subject. I would prefer less money spent on him, in fact the minimum, as long as he is locked away from us. I also argue that jails should run on smaller budgets, but that is a different thread, and no I won't produce statistics on that. I have no clue what is cheaper, but I can guarantee the general public is safe from him while he is locked away. I can't say the same for him to be managed directly by a team of professionals while he is getting day passes. Any money spent on him should be locking him up. This guy, as sad as this is for both parties, is a bad investment.
|
That may be your opinion and you're welcome to it, but it doesn't make any sense. It's not an option. Prisoners don't get budgets based on the severity of their crimes.
Secondly, generally the higher the security level a prisoner has, the more it costs, so the current option could actually be cheaper.
I understand if you feel weird paying for a criminal, that's a normal thing, but the argument you are making (spend less on him) makes no sense and has no basis in reality. It's an irrelevant argument. There is no such thing as 'the minimum' when it comes to jailing criminals. It is what it is.