Printable View
this is regarding a tg inmate:
"An Associated Press review last year found that the corrections department and its outside health care provider had spent more than $52,000 on experts to testify about the surgery, which would cost about $20,000."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/26/....ap/index.html
"Robert Kosilek was sentenced to life in prison in the 1990 murder of his wife. Kosilek said the slaying was self-defense after she poured boiling tea on his genitals."
She tried committing suicide twice, she killed her wife and was arrested for DUI the same year. This is a selfish person who doesn't think of anyone but herself.
Going to prison is a punishment, not a holiday where you go to have the taxpayers pay for surgery and hair removal treatment to better yourself.
Prisoners should not be treated better then the general public. If she would have been successful in her suicide attempts she would have never killer her wife. A shame really :rip:
i don't see the point of "punishing" someone for life. seems like the point of lifetime incarceration is to keep someone off the street. and in any event, should all normal choices and freedoms be taken away from someone who has already lost their freedom to leave, to wear the clothes they would like to wear, to do what they want to do?
In regards to this specific case I think she's abusing the system. She has the freedom to sue, and she has sued the government a number of times now, which resulted in her getting hormone treatments, laser hair removal and psychotherapy. Well the laser hair removal wasn't enough so now she's pushing for electrolysis to finish the job she feels laser hair removal didn't do well enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
-------
``My best friend has been killed, and they think I did it," the sobbing spouse told reporters in May 1990, while police searched a Mansfield condo for evidence to link him to her slaying. He allegedly strangled her with the wire from a hanging planter, dumped her body in the back seat of her car, and abandoned the gray Hyundai in the Emerald Square Mall in North Attleborough. ``I didn't do it. Of course I didn't. . . . I didn't do anything to her. I couldn't do that to anyone."
He shaved his beard and fled the state a few hours later. When police pulled him over on charges of speeding and driving drunk in New Rochelle, N.Y., the weepy fugitive told an officer: ``I can't call my wife. I murdered my wife." Then he fought extradition.
Brought back to Massachusetts five months later, Kosilek challenged the state's request for a psychiatric evaluation at Bridgewater State Hospital because, he said, he had been dismissed two years earlier for turning in guards who were abusing inmates. He had been fired, but not for the self-aggrandizing reason he had asserted. Kosilek was canned from the state Department of Correction facility for not mentioning on his job application the small matter of having served three years in prison in Illinois for theft and attempted burglary. [ source ]
---------
I believe your premise is right, but this particular case isn't the one it should be applied to. I would rather the government pay to have the surgery done for a deserving citizen who really needs it then this con man.
but the suit found that she SHOULD be allowed treatments. her claims now is that the treatments are not working correctly, so it seems to me that her request for an doctor to assess is reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
Someone murders someone and you want them to have all freedoms as a lawabiding citizen except being able to go and come as they please? I'm sorry but bring back public hangings!Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
um... no. and i didn't say i did.
no one in prison has the same freedoms as those who aren't. they have no right to privacy, they can't choose their clothes, their food, their friends. they can't date, buy an ipod or buy a new car and go for a drive.
not everyone in prison murdered anyone, there are guys there for lots of other reasons. and that last year alone new evidence proved that over 20 guys in prison for over 15 years could not have commited the murders they were convicted of. but the same rules and regulations apply to all. there are guys convicted of murder at 18 who 25 years later have been born again christians and model citizens for 20 years. should they not have at least a few rights and privileges?
besides, my point was financial. who the fuck spends $50,000 to avoid spending $20,000?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdynow
I was going by your original post “i don't see the point of "punishing" someone for life. seems like the point of lifetime incarceration is to keep someone off the street. and in any event, should all normal choices and freedoms be taken away from someone who has already lost their freedom to leave, to wear the clothes they would like to wear, to do what they want to do?”Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
With today’s new technologies if there is proof they are innocent they are let out. As far as someone who committed a murder at 18 and now 25 years later are so called Christians and model citizens, LOL. You must mean model inmates. I’m sorry they committed an unforgivable sin against a man, woman or child, MURDER!
Should they have more rights than the average prisoner …. Aw NO! Oh, by the way they can purchase things like a TV, CD player while in prison they just need the money to do it.
I don’t think the point was to spend $50,000 to not spend $20,000 IMHO I think the government was trying to see how far the courts were going to push criminals rights while in prison. So spending $50,000 now could millions later. If the government is going to spend $20,000 for this criminal’s procedure I have one I would like done that won’t cost them but $15,000 and I pay taxes unlike the criminal.