Bronx Legislators Push To Hold Incarcerated Parents Closer to Children

Two Bronx legislators want to establish a pilot program that would let 60 parents be incarcerated near their minor children, reports the New York Daily News. New York State’s Department of Corrections doesn’t factor in parenthood when assigning inmates to prisons, even though 73 percent of female inmates are moms.

According to the Women’s Prison Association’s Institute on Women & Criminal Justice, drug offenses make up about 28% of the female state prison population nationwide, with nearly 2/3 of women in state prison there for non-violent offenses. Why focus on mothers? Department of Justice statisticians report incarcerated mothers are more than two and a half times more likely than fathers to have been head of a single parent household prior to their incarceration.

While New York State’s prison population has declined over the last decade, the Daily News suggests transferring inmates downstate to be closer to their children could be politically problematic because of upstate politicians who want to keep prisons, and, crucially, prison staff (jobs!) upstate, even when the inmates (most of them, given the denser population) are from downstate.

The New York State prison system is routinely managed as a jobs program, a symptom of government engaging in spending as policymaking. So while the war on drugs is touted as an ‘absolutely critical’ investment that only Social Darwinists would oppose, doing something humane for incarcerated parents and, more importantly, their children, gets tied up in regional politics.  

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Sexist!

  • OC in DC||

    Who cares if they care closer? Will it cost less or will it cost more? If it costs less fine, but if it costs more hell no. If we could save by holding people in a dark cell and they'd never see their kids that would be a waste.

    The drug war should be stopped because it costs too much, jails cost too much as well. But let's be honest, this movement is first and foremost about lowering taxes.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    But let's be honest, this movement is first and foremost about lowering taxes.

    Then count me out. I'd even take simpler taxes over lower ones. While I was in business, tax preparation took a considerable chunk of time away from my life. Further, I'd be happy if they just left people alone to do things that don't hurt other people. Why do I care if my neighbor cuts down his tree or paints his trim a new color? Why should he care I have a garden with vegetables or flowers? And what business is it of anybody's if I pay for healthcare by cash, check, charge or insurance?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    You just hate the children, you monocled libertine.

  • Zeb||

    What?

  • OC in DC||

    Who cares if they care closer? Will it cost less or will it cost more? If it costs less fine, but if it costs more hell no. If we could save by holding people in a dark cell and they'd never see their kids that would be a waste.

    The drug war should be stopped because it costs too much, jails cost too much as well. But let's be honest, this movement is first and foremost about lowering taxes.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Lowering taxes is a means to the end of respecting the liberty of people to do as they wish.

    This movement is first and foremost about not telling people what to do, and that includes not telling them what they believe and why.

  • KPres||

    "The drug war should be stopped because it costs too much"

    The Socialist Chinese used to take heroin addicts out and shoot them in the back of the head. Think about how cheap that is!

    Just sayin', when it comes to drugs, the principle is more important than the money.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Have you bought ammo lately?

  • OC in DC||

    I'd be fine with that. Just as long as we don't have to pay for it.

    Less taxes, less regulations, less bullshit consumer safety, less having to pay when people get sick. Kill the social safety net, income inequality is a feature and a great thing here.

  • ||

    I detect more than a hint of disingenuous performance snark here. And, not surprisingly, the scent of Mc Ribs.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Don't forget folks, the Police State is a double solution to the economic problem. No only does it provide jobs/stimulus to guards, cops, and the various vendors who supply them, it also takes those unsightly unemployed undesirable criminal scum off the streets.

    More importantly, once those reprobates are out of prison and unemployable, they don't count against the jobless rate because they're not technically looking for work.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    No only does it provide jobs/stimulus to guards, cops, and the various vendors who supply them, it also takes those unsightly unemployed undesirable criminal scum off the streets.

    Dude! The cops don't like it when you call them "unsightly unemployed undesirable criminal scum."

  • Randian||

    I am going to be "that guy", but it galls me that parenthood is somehow more governmentally favored than any other chosen social relationship. Did you have a baby? Here's a month of paid-for maternity leave (and a week of paternity leave in some jurisdictions). Here's a child tax credit. Here's free schooling baby-sitting services. Here's consideration for your prison sentence.

    Wait, you're single or a married but childless and you want to go to a concert/friend's wedding/wine-tasting? Go fuck yourself.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Wait, you're single or a married but childless and you want to go to a concert/friend's wedding/wine-tasting? Go fuck yourself.

    Well, at least you'll never have to change a stinky diaper! So you got that going for you, which is pretty good.

  • Virginian||

    Idealistic view is that children are the real reason we have civilization in the first place, and it takes a village, etc etc.

    Cynical view says the tax leeches need new taxpayers so the gravy train won't stop.

    You can pick which one you prefer.

  • ||

    So, should we start a pool to see which buzzword, "Access" or "Social Darwinist" gets more abused, maligned and distorted during this election year?

    I'm laying 7:10 odds it will be "Access".

  • Hugh Akston||

    Yeah, Social Darwinist will be pretty quickly abandoned once internet lefties are laughed out of court for propagating it.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Well, I think the list needs to be expanded, perhaps to 32 words. Seeded into a bracket, and then we play the bracket. The word which is more abused, maligned and distorted during each week of the election cycle wins it's matchup that week, and advances to the next round. We could use the NY Times as the paper of record.

    I would like to add these words to the tournament:

    Fair Share
    Grown Ups
    Opportunity
    Advancement
    Hard Choices
    Civility
    Equitable

  • R C Dean||

    Working Hard
    Reach Out
    Hard-Working Families
    War On _________

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Change
    Hope

  • R C Dean||

    Lying Cocksucker.
    Thieving Ratfucker.
    Pandering Whore.
    Syphilitic Camel.

    Or maybe those are for a different contest.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Values
    Shared Values
    Small Businesses
    Main Street
    Wall Street

  • Malcolm Kyle||

    An appeal to all Prohibitionists:

    We simply cannot continue with a policy that has proven itself to be a poison in the veins of practically every free nation on this planet. Even if you cannot bear the thought of people using drugs, there is absolutely nothing you, or any government, can do to stop them. We have spent 40 years and trillions of dollars on this dangerous farce; Prohibition will not suddenly and miraculously start showing different results.

    Do you actually believe you may personally have something to lose If we were to begin basing drug policy on science & logic instead of ignorance, hate and lies? Maybe you're a police officer, a prison guard or a local/national politician. Possibly you're scared of losing employment, overtime-pay, the many kick-backs and those regular fat bribes. But what good will any of that do you once our society has followed Mexico over the dystopian abyss of dismembered bodies, vats of acid and marauding thugs carrying gold-plated AK-47s with leopard-skinned gunstocks?

    You may find lies easier to tell, but they do nothing to prevent the existence of truth, they do nothing to help you sleep at night, and they do absolutely nothing to help those who depend on you for their safety and health.

    Kindly allow us to forgo the next level of your sycophantic prohibition-engendered mayhem!

    Prohibition Prevents Regulation : Legalize, Regulate and Tax!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement