Prison officials are set to let some female inmates out early

Submitted by anthony on Sun, 2011-09-18 17:35

Article here. Excerpt:

'Reporting from Sacramento— Drastically redefining incarceration in California, prison officials are about to start releasing thousands of female inmates who have children to serve the remainder of their sentences at home.

The move, which could affect nearly half the women held in state facilities, will help California meet a court-imposed deadline to make space in its chronically overcrowded prisons. The policy could be extended to male inmates in the near future, administrators said Monday.

Mothers who were convicted of non-serious, non-sexual crimes — and have two years or less remaining on their sentences — could start going home as early as next week, prisons spokeswoman Dana Toyama said. The women would be required to wear GPS-enabled ankle bracelets and report to parole officers.
...
Since well over 90% of California inmates are men, it is easy to see why prison officials might want to expand the program, said Robert Oakes, legislative director for state Sen. Carol Liu (D-La Cañada Flintridge), who wrote the 2010 bill creating the policy. But that wasn't the original idea.

"In crafting the bill, her intent was to single out female inmates with children," Oakes said. But that could not be done because of a constitutional ban against gender-based discrimination. So the phrase "primary caregiver" was added to the bill.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

If they are in jail, how can they be the 'primary caregiver'?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Mon, 2011-09-19 00:41

It's fascinating how this phrase is used to bias decisions in favor of the mother--women--but does it in a way that does not appear discriminatory. Of course, when men who are primary caregivers win custody, women complained of discrimination against working moms. It's really unfair when you're held to the same standards you want other people held to.

But as Matt notes, how can these women be primary caregivers if they're in jail? Doesn't that mean someone else is the primary caregiver for their children? If so, claiming primary caregiver status is a form of fraud.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Mon, 2011-09-19 02:22

It's so incredibly disturbing. Why not release fathers who perform the provider role? I guess providing isn't part of parenthood... Nope, those fathers sacrificing all that time and joy to be at work so they can provide aren't real parents. So men providing and acting in crucial ways for their kids development just isn't enough. And never mind that kids from single father homes do even better that kids of two parent homes... It's all about the main caregiver, traditionally the mother.

I can't believe they would validate one parent over the other for acting like a team.

Now men who are the main provider can pay lifetime alimony, receive less custody, and be given less leniency in sentencing.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by fondueguy on Mon, 2011-09-19 06:20

What's really bothering me is that this is being done to releive overcrowding. To encourage reunification...

Fathers are jailed for not paying when they are destitute. If they want to reduce overcrowding, how about stopping the bloody debtors prison? If they want to encourage families, how about not putting fathers behind bars where they can't see their children, for no reason beyond they can't afford to pay. Talk about hypocrisy.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kratch on Mon, 2011-09-19 16:31